State v. Collin

• Decision Date: 09 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 35292.,35292.
• Citation: 105 A.3d 309,154 Conn.App. 102
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut, v. Henry T. COLLIN.

154 Conn.App. 102

105 A.3d 309

STATE of Connecticut

v.Henry T. COLLIN.

No. 35292.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Dec. 9, 2014.

A. Paul Spinella, Hartford, with whom, was Peter C. White, for the appellant (defendant).

Sarah Hanna, assistant state's attorney, with whom were, Russell C. Zentner, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Peter A. McShane, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

GRUENDEL, LAVINE and DUPONT, Js.

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J.

The defendant, Henry T. Collin, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered by the trial court, following a jury trial, of seven counts of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–71 (a)(1) and seven counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) refused to permit a defense witness, David Mantell, to testify as an expert on the topic of false confessions; (2) concluded that the defendant was not in custody before or during an interrogation of him at the state police barracks; (3) concluded that the defendant voluntarily consented to a police search of his boat and the seizure of its contents; (4) refused to instruct the jury that it should apply a “special scrutiny” when considering the defendant's confession because it was the product of an unrecorded police interrogation; and (5) excluded evidence of the victim's sexual history.¹ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following relevant facts. The victim's stepfather knew the defendant, who owned and operated a mechanical repair business. The defendant repaired the engines of boats, jet skis, motorcycles, and other mechanical devices. When the victim, who was fourteen years of age and interested in mechanical work, told her stepfather that she was interested in obtaining a part-time job, her stepfather introduced her to the defendant, who was thirty-nine years of age. In December, 2009, the defendant hired the victim as an apprentice, but paid her “under the table.” During the five or six months she worked for him, the defendant paid the victim approximately $250. The defendant often picked up the victim from school and took her to his home, where they worked in the backyard on various types of engines. They also went to other locations to work.

In March, 2010, the relationship between the victim and the defendant became more intimate, and they began dating. The victim had developed feelings for the defendant, and the defendant told the victim that he liked her and that, although they knew it was wrong, his life was in her hands. They began kissing in the defendant's pickup truck and on the defendant's boat, which, initially, was on dry dock, covered by a tarp, and sitting on stilts at the marina. The boat was a twenty-eight foot, 1979 Fiberform Executive yacht. The defendant took the victim out on his motorcycle, brought her to various restaurants and to the movie theater, and bought her gifts. The defendant also gave the victim an engagement ring, but instructed her not to tell anyone about it. He also told her not to tell anyone about their relationship because he could get in trouble.

As the relationship progressed, the victim and the defendant began engaging in vaginal and oral intercourse in the bedroom of the defendant's boat. There was evidence that, due to some medical problems, the defendant was unable to maintain a full erection or to ejaculate. To combat this problem, the defendant developed and used an “O” ring, which he placed around the base of his penis. He also used K–Y lubricant on his penis. The defendant told the victim that he loved her and would never hurt her. The defendant and the victim engaged in intercourse on the boat approximately ten times, both while the boat was on stilts and after it was put in the water. The last time the defendant and the victim had sexual relations was on Father's Day in 2010. Between April 1 and June 27, 2010, the defendant and the victim also made approximately 674 telephone calls to each other.

The victim previously had told some of her friends about her relationship with the defendant, and, on or about June 26, 2010, two of those friends accompanied her to a church parking lot where she told her stepfather about her relationship with the defendant. While the four of them were in the parking lot, the victim's stepfather telephoned the defendant, putting the call on speaker phone, and confronted him about the victim's accusations. The defendant denied having a sexual relationship with the victim.

On June 27, 2010, the victim and her mother met at their home with Detectives James McGlynn and Scott Wisner of the state police. The victim gave a statement to McGlynn in which she detailed her relationship with the defendant. The victim also drew a sketch of the area of the boat where she and the defendant had engaged in sexual relations and a sketch of the defendant's penis wearing the “O” ring device that he had developed to help him maintain an erection.

At the time the victim was meeting with McGlynn and Wisner, other members of the state police were stationed at the marina where the defendant docked his boat. When the defendant arrived at the marina with his fourteen year old niece, Sergeant Robert Derry instructed him that the police were there as part of an investigation. Derry asked the defendant for permission to search the boat and very clearly told him that he was not required to remain on the premises, and that he was free to leave. The defendant stated that he understood, but he stayed at the marina, nonetheless. The discussions between Derry and the defendant were calm, the defendant was not handcuffed or threatened, and he voiced no objections. The defendant signed a consent to search form that Derry provided to him.

When McGlynn finished interviewing the victim at her home, he proceeded to the marina where he introduced himself to the defendant. McGlynn told the defendant that he would like to interview him regarding the victim's complaint and requested that the defendant follow him to the state police barracks. The defendant agreed, and he and his niece got into the defendant's truck and followed McGlynn to the state police barracks. Upon arriving at the barracks, the niece remained in the waiting room, while McGlynn and the defendant went to McGlynn's second floor office. McGlynn advised the defendant that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood. Wisner also was present in the office for a portion of the interview.

McGlynn asked the defendant about his relationship with the victim, and the defendant provided details of the relationship, including its sexual nature and that the last time he and the victim had engaged in intercourse was on Father's Day in 2010. The defendant stated that he loved the victim and that he had given her an engagement ring. As the interview progressed, the defendant told McGlynn that he was wearing the “O” ring while being interviewed. McGlynn reduced the defendant's verbal statement to writing and read him his Miranda warnings; see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) ; which were preprinted on the statement. The defendant took an oath acknowledging that he had read the statement and that the statement was true. He then signed the statement in various places, including his acknowledgment that he had been read his Miranda warnings. The defendant asked to use the restroom, and, after using the facility, gave McGlynn the “O” ring that he had been wearing. McGlynn then placed the “O” ring in an envelope and tagged it as evidence. The defendant also signed a consent to search form related to the “O” ring.

As the interview concluded, McGlynn told the defendant that the victim's parents requested that the defendant not contact the victim. For the first time while being interviewed, the defendant broke down in tears, explaining to McGlynn that he was going to miss the victim and that he did not know how he was going to be without her. McGlynn and the defendant returned to the marina, where, at approximately 10:05 p.m., McGlynn seized two tubes of K–Y jelly.

Following the defendant's arrest on July 12, 2010, he was charged with seven counts of sexual assault in the second degree and seven counts of risk of injury to a child.² After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on all counts, and sentenced to a total effective term of twenty years incarceration, execution suspended after eight years, with ten years of probation. This appeal followed.

I

The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by refusing to permit the defendant's expert, David Mantell, a licensed clinical psychologist, to testify on the topic of false confessions.³ The defendant argues that Mantell was qualified as an expert on the topic of false confessions and that such testimony was necessary to assist the jury in its assessment of the defendant's testimony regarding his confession. The state argues, inter alia, that the defendant failed to prove that Mantell had sufficient expertise on the topic of false confessions, and, accordingly, that the court properly declined to permit him to testify as an expert on the topic of false confessions.⁴ We agree with the state.

The following additional facts inform our review. On September 21, 2012, the parties discussed the issue of Mantell's testimony with the trial court, and defense counsel argued that, pursuant to § 7–4 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence,⁵ Mantell was qualified to testify and to talk about what occurred during the defendant's confession. The defendant asserted that his confession was false and that Mantell's testimony would assist the jury in assessing the falsity of his confession. The prosecutor informed the court that he wanted an offer of proof...