State v. Brunetti

• Decision Date: 11 July 2006
• Docket Number: No. 16788.,16788.
• Citation: 279 Conn. 39,901 A.2d 1
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Nicholas A. BRUNETTI.

Page 1

901 A.2d 1

279 Conn. 39

STATE of Connecticut v. Nicholas A. BRUNETTI.

No. 16788.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 20, 2004.

Decided July 11, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard Emanuel, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).

Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mary M. Galvin, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

SULLIVAN, C.J., and BORDEN, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and SCHALLER, Js.^*

PALMER, J.

In State v. Brunetti, 276 Conn. 40, 883 A.2d 1167 (2005), this court reversed the murder conviction of the defendant, Nicholas A. Brunetti, concluding that the consent search of his home violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. In particular, the court agreed with the defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989),¹ that he was entitled to a new trial because, even though his father had consented to the search, the search was constitutionally infirm because the defendant's mother, who was present when the police obtained the father's consent, declined to consent to the search. See State v. Brunetti, supra, at 48-51, 883 A.2d 1167. Following the release of Brunetti, the state filed a motion seeking, inter alia, reconsideration en banc, which we granted.² Upon reconsideration, we now conclude that, contrary to our determination in Brunetti, the defendant is not entitled to review of his unpreserved constitutional claim because he has failed to establish under the first prong of Golding; see footnote 1 of this opinion; that the record is adequate for our review of the merits of his claim. Because we also conclude that the defendant's other claims are without merit,³ we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts that the jury reasonably could have found are set forth in this court's opinion in Brunetti. "On the evening of June 23, 2000, thirty-five year old Doris Crain (victim) left her house and walked to Sonny's Bar on Campbell Avenue in West Haven. After the victim left the bar, she encountered the nineteen year old defendant near the intersection of Campbell Avenue and Main Street. The victim approached the defendant and asked whether he had any marijuana. The defendant replied that he did and asked the victim to smoke with him behind the Washington Avenue Magnet School. After sharing a marijuana cigarette, the defendant and the victim began kissing and engaging in sexual foreplay. After a short time, the defendant and the victim partially removed their clothing, laid on the ground and began engaging in sexual intercourse. After having intercourse for about fifteen minutes, the victim asked the defendant to stop because the sexual activity was hurting her. The defendant ignored the victim's request and he continued until he reached an orgasm. After the intercourse ended, the victim got up, cursed at the defendant and told him she was going to call the police. In response to the victim's threat, the defendant grabbed the victim in a chokehold, punched her in the head, dragged her by her hair, and then by her feet, across the ground, and repeatedly struck her over the head with an empty glass bottle.⁴ The defendant then left the victim's body in the high grass behind the school, throwing her clothing and the bottle nearby. As he left the school area, the defendant walked past Jerrell Credle, Mike Banores, Jose Rivera and Michael Scott, who were seated at a picnic table on the school grounds. Credle recognized and greeted the defendant. The defendant acknowledged Credle, but did not stop to talk to him or the others, and continued to his home at 208 Center Street, where he lived with his parents.⁵

"Following the discovery of the victim's body the next day, the West Haven police department obtained information suggesting that the defendant might be involved in the victim's murder. [Detective] Anthony Buglione [of the major crime unit of the Connecticut state police] and [Detective] Joseph Biondi [of the West Haven police department] (detectives) went to the defendant's home to question the defendant. The detectives approached the defendant's parents, who were sitting on the front porch of their home, and asked to speak with the defendant. Anthony Brunetti, Sr., the defendant's father, went inside the house to find the defendant while the detectives remained outside with the defendant's mother, Dawn Brunetti. The defendant emerged from the Brunetti home with his father ten to fifteen minutes later. The detectives then told the defendant that they wanted to bring him to the West Haven police department for questioning and asked him to produce the clothes he had worn the previous evening. The defendant retrieved some clothing from his bedroom, and the detectives then drove the defendant to the police station for questioning. The defendant's parents followed the detectives to the police station in their own car.

"At the police station, the detectives questioned the defendant in an interrogation room, while the defendant's parents remained in the station's waiting area. Sometime during the questioning, Detective James Sweetman of the West Haven police department and [Detective] Mark Testoni [of the Connecticut state police] approached the defendant's parents and asked them to sign consent forms to allow the West Haven police to search the Brunetti residence. The defendant's father signed the form but the defendant's mother refused to sign the form. The defendant's parents then left the police station to let the police into their home to conduct the search while the defendant remained at the station with the detectives. During the search of the home, the police looked inside the washing machine and found several items of recently washed clothing, including a pair of sweatpants, two tank tops and a towel.⁶ The sweatpants and towel exhibited `bleach-like stains,' and one of the tank tops exhibited reddish-brown blood-like stains. When . . . Buglione, who was at the police station questioning the defendant, learned of this discovery, he told the defendant and asked him to elaborate. The defendant then became upset and requested a Bible. The detectives subsequently issued Miranda⁷ warnings to the defendant, who proceeded to give an inculpatory statement to the detectives, describing in detail the manner in which he had murdered the victim."⁸ State v. Brunetti, supra, 276 Conn. at 42-45, 883 A.2d 1167.

The defendant then was formally placed under arrest and charged with murder. Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of sixty years.⁹ The defendant subsequently appealed from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(b)(3).

On appeal, the defendant claims that the consent search of his home violated his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution¹⁰ and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution¹¹ because the state failed to obtain the consent of both of his parents. Alternatively, the defendant contends that the search of his home violated the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures because his father's consent to the search was not knowing and voluntary, and, therefore, invalid. The defendant further contends that the trial court improperly: (1) denied his motion to suppress his confession as the product of an illegal arrest; (2) permitted the state to present evidence concerning his request for a Bible in violation of his Miranda rights; (3) denied his request for a one day continuance of the trial; and (4) permitted the state to present evidence of his post-Miranda silence. We reject all of these claims, which we address in turn.

I

We first address the defendant's claim that, because his mother declined to consent to the search of his home, that search was illegal, and, therefore, evidence seized pursuant to the search, as well as his confession, improperly were admitted into evidence. Because the defendant did not raise this claim at trial, he seeks to prevail under State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. at 239-40, 567 A.2d 823. The state maintains, inter alia, that the record is inadequate for review of the defendant's unpreserved claim and, therefore, that the claim fails the first prong of Golding. We agree with the state.¹²

The following additional factual and procedural background is necessary for our resolution of this claim.¹³ The defendant filed motions to suppress certain bloody clothing belonging to him that the police had discovered during their search of the home in which he resided, as well as the confession that the defendant had given to the police, after his arrest, detailing his attack of the victim. In support of his motions, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the confession was the product of an illegal search of his home because, he alleged, the police had not obtained valid consent to search the home. The defendant further maintained that his confession was the product of the allegedly unlawful search of his home because he gave his confession after being told of the bloody clothing that the police had discovered during their search of the home. His sole argument in support of that claim was that his father's consent was not voluntary even though his father had signed a form indicating that he "knowingly, willingly and voluntarily" consented to the search "after having been informed of [his] [c]onstitutional right not to have a search performed without a search warrant and of [his] [c]onstitutional right to refuse to consent to such a search. . . ." At no time did the defendant suggest that the state also was required to obtain his mother's consent to search the house, even though the evidence established that the defendant's mother and father were together at the police station,...