State v. Cushard
Decision Date | 26 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 36680.,36680. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Robert CUSHARD. |
Daniel J. Krisch, assigned counsel, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David S. Shepack, state's attorney, and Dawn Gallo, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
LAVINE, BEACH and MIHALAKOS, Js.
BEACH
, J.
The defendant, Robert Cushard, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree pursuant to General Statutes §§ 53a–59 (a)(1)
, 53a–134 (a)(1) and (3), and 53a–101 (a)(2), respectively. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to suppress statements that he made during an interrogation by the state police, in that he had smoked crack cocaine a few hours prior to the interrogation and, as such, the waiver of his Miranda1 rights was invalid; (2) granted his motion to represent himself because the court's canvass of him did not adequately establish that his waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; and (3) instructed the jury that it had to consider his interest in the outcome of the trial, in that such instruction singled him out and thus undermined his right to a fair trial. We do not agree with the defendant's claims, and we affirm the judgment.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the disposition of the defendant's appeal. The defendant was arrested in Massachusetts on August 4, 2011. Shortly after his arrest, two Connecticut state police officers interrogated the defendant. During this interrogation, the police prepared a statement for the defendant, but he declined to sign it. A transcript and audiotape of the interview were entered into evidence at the defendant's trial. In July, 2012, the defendant moved to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation, as well as any testimony related to the statements. He argued that he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his rights to counsel and against self-incrimination because he had used crack cocaine shortly prior to his arrest and subsequent interrogation. The court denied the motion.
In September, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to represent himself. The defendant claimed that his attorney, Christopher M. Cosgrove, was not familiar with his case and was ineffective. In October, 2012, the court conducted a canvass of the defendant, at the end of which the court granted his motion to represent himself. In February, 2013, the court recanvassed the defendant “to go over that once again.” The defendant indicated, again, that he wished to proceed without counsel.
After hearing the evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty of assault, burglary, and two counts of robbery.2 The defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment, followed by ten years of special parole. This appeal followed.3
The defendant claims that the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the statements he had made during an interrogation by Brian Narkewicz, a detective with the Connecticut state police. He argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights before giving his statements to the police because he had smoked crack cocaine a few hours earlier. We do not agree.
Additional facts, as presented in the record, are necessary to resolve this claim. When the defendant was arrested and brought into the interview room at the police station, Narkewicz read the defendant his rights, and the defendant placed his initials next to each right on a waiver form. The defendant also signed the bottom of the waiver form. Narkewicz testified that the defendant appeared to read the rights form prior to signing. He agreed with the prosecutor that, on the basis of the interview, he believed that the defendant had a sophisticated understanding of the criminal justice system.4 Narkewicz questioned the defendant about the allegations against the defendant for nearly one hour. He testified that the defendant “was interacting with me in a very coherent and logical manner” and “answering the questions in a logical, calculated manner.”
Toward the end of the interrogation, the defendant told Narkewicz that he had used crack cocaine one hour prior to his arrest. In response, Narkewicz terminated the interrogation:
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Narkewicz testified that, on the basis of his experience and training, he did not believe that the defendant was unable to make rational decisions: “Given the lapse of time between when he was taken into custody and when I was speaking with him, I did not believe that to be a factor during this interview.”5 Narkewicz also testified that the defendant corrected Narkewicz' grammar and pronunciation throughout the investigation. He had not detected the defendant slurring his speech. He observed the defendant exhibit similar mannerisms and speech both during the interview and the next day when the defendant would not have been under the influence of crack cocaine.
The court denied the motion to suppress, and although the court did not make a specific finding as to whether the defendant was under the influence of drugs at the time of the interview, it found in the “totality of the circumstances” that Narkewicz The court noted that the defendant had not provided information about any treatment he may have received for drug use or introduced expert testimony to explain the effect an illegal substance may have had on his ability to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver.
The defendant argues that the court's conclusion that the waiver was valid was erroneous because it was based on inconsistent findings. He argues that
First, we set forth the principles that guide our review. (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 50, 836 A.2d 224 (2003)
, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S.Ct. 1614, 158 L.Ed.2d 254 (2004). “Although the issue [of whether there has been a knowing and voluntary waiver] is ... ultimately factual, our usual deference to fact-finding by the trial court is qualified, on questions of this nature, by the necessity for a scrupulous examination of the record to ascertain whether such a factual finding is supported by substantial evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stephenson, 99 Conn.App. 591, 599–600, 915 A.2d 327
, cert. denied, 282 Conn. 903, 919 A.2d 1037 (2007).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 600, 915 A.2d 327
.
We conclude that the court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous or irreconcilably inconsistent and that they survive a scrupulous examination of the record. See id., at 599–600, 915 A.2d 327
. “The trial court has broad discretion in evaluating the evidence and testimony presented before it.” State v. Billie, 47 Conn.App. 678, 692, 707 A.2d 324 (1998), aff'd, 250 Conn. 172, 738 A.2d 586 (1999). The court credited Narkewicz' testimony that he did not observe, on the basis of his experience and training, the defendant acting incoherently. Rather, the defendant seemed to be composed, articulate, and calculating. Moreover, the record supports the court's finding that the defendant, at the time of the interview, did not indicate that he had used crack cocaine until “things were getting a little too close for comfort with the defendant, in terms of any admissions he might be making....”6 Although Narkewicz terminated the interrogation upon hearing the defendant's claim that he had used crack cocaine that day, the court reasonably could have determined from Narkewicz' testimony that the defendant was capable of exercising a valid waiver and that Narkewicz simply may have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cushard
...any harm. The Appellate Court agreed that the first canvass was deficient but declined to grant a new trial. State v. Cushard , 164 Conn. App. 832, 840, 137 A.3d 926 (2016). Instead, the Appellate Court concluded that the error in the first canvass was subject to harmless error analysis. Id......
-
State v. Bouvier
...whether such a factual finding is supported by substantial evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cushard , 164 Conn. App. 832, 838–39, 137 A.3d 926 (2016), aff'd, 328 Conn. 558, 181 A.3d 74 (2018)."There is no requirement in our law that a valid Miranda waiver must be evid......
-
State v. Moreno
... ... the person interrogated ... Although mere silence of the ... accused is not enough to establish waiver ... the record ... need not show a specific expression of the relinquishment of ... rights." State v. Cushard , 164 Conn.App. 832, ... 839, 137 A.3d 926 (2016). (Citations omitted.) ... The ... defendant argues that as a consequence of his suicide ... attempt, the injuries he received, and the medications he was ... administered as a consequence of those injuries, he ... ...
-
State v. Gray
... ... person interrogated ... Although mere silence of the accused ... is not enough to establish waiver ... the record need not ... show a specific expression of the relinquishment of ... rights." State v. Cushard, 164 Conn.App. 832, ... 839 (2016). (Citations omitted.) "Miranda ... specifically required that the police inform a criminal ... suspect that he has the right to remain silent and that ... anything he says may be used against him. There is ... not qualification ... ...