214 Conn.App. 294
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- At ~8:47 PM defendant Rodney Waters struck another vehicle while attempting a U‑turn, fled the scene, and was identified by the other driver from a photo of the license plate.
- About 20 minutes after the crash Waters returned on foot; officers observed slurred speech, unsteady movement, and belligerent conduct; he failed three field sobriety tests administered within ~30 minutes of the crash.
- At the station Waters declined breath testing and refused the urine test after initially agreeing; he was charged under § 14‑227a(a)(1) (behavioral DUI) and later pled guilty to a second‑offender count.
- Waters testified that he did not begin drinking until after he got home (describing a "Jamaican splash," half‑pint vodka sips, and smoking a "spliff").
- The state rebutted with forensic toxicologist Robert Lockwood, who (via hypotheticals) opined that observable alcohol effects typically take ~30–40 minutes and that slurred speech usually correlates with a BAC around 0.16–0.17; the trial court admitted that testimony over a general relevancy objection.
- Waters appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intoxication while driving, (2) improper admission of BAC‑style opinion in a behavioral prosecution under § 14‑227a(c), (3) undue restriction of cross‑examination about other substances (Confrontation Clause), and (4) erroneous denial of his motion to suppress statements (Miranda issues).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Waters' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Waters was intoxicated while driving | Evidence (reckless driving, flight, ID, observed intoxication ~20 min later, failed FSTs, refusals) supports inference he was intoxicated while driving | Adlam's testimony unreliable; observations and FSTs occurred too long after driving; expert didn’t prove intoxication pre‑driving | Affirmed: cumulative evidence and reasonable inferences supported conviction beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admission of expert BAC‑style testimony in behavioral prosecution (§ 14‑227a(c)) | Testimony was hypothetical and rebuttal to Waters’ claim he drank only after driving; did not give direct chemical BAC evidence | Such opinion effectively opined on defendant’s BAC and violated § 14‑227a(c); also denied due process | Unpreserved; not reviewable under Golding (non‑constitutional evidentiary claim); admission problematic in spirit but not plain error reversible here |
| Restriction on cross‑examining expert about effect of other substances (spliff) | Cross‑exam lacked foundation because Waters never testified what the "spliff" contained; therefore hypothetical about interaction was irrelevant | Needed to test expert’s opinion reliability and show other substances could explain observed effects (Confrontation Clause) | No Sixth Amendment violation: court reasonably found lack of factual foundation; excluding that cross‑examination was within trial court discretion |
| Denial of motion to suppress statements (custody/Miranda and waiver at station) | Court reasonably found on bodycam review that on‑scene questioning was noncustodial Terry‑style; in station Waters was advised and conduct showed waiver | He was in custody when handcuffed and not Mirandized; later did not validly waive Miranda at station | Record inadequate for appellate review: trial court gave a terse ruling without findings or an evidentiary hearing and Waters failed to seek articulation, so claim not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial‑interrogation warnings required)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (due process test for unreliable, suggestive identifications)
- State v. DeCoster, 147 Conn. 502 (Conn. 1960) (insufficiency reversal where timing of operation was speculative)
- State v. Lopez, 177 Conn. App. 651 (Conn. App. 2017) (warning that opinion evidence equating observed behavior to a numerical BAC in behavioral prosecutions is problematic)
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (expert testimony admissibility requires relevance/fit and reliability)