State v. DeMatteo

• Decision Date: 20 April 1982
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Pasquale DeMATTEO.

Page 915

443 A.2d 915

186 Conn. 696

STATE of Connecticut v. Pasquale DeMATTEO.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 11, 1982.

Decided April 20, 1982.

[186 Conn. 697] Frank Antollino, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).

Linda K. Lager, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and Michael Dearington, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, PARSKEY, SHEA and DALY, JJ.

PARSKEY, Associate Justice.

The defendant was charged by indictment and information with the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty to the charge of murder and guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit murder, in When Lucille told her husband about the incident that afternoon, he became angry and grabbed a gun from the kitchen but then replaced it and did not leave the house. She asked her husband not to tell the defendant about the incident. In the early evening, the defendant came over with a repairman and discussed with Robert work to be done on their driveway. At some point in the evening, the defendant and Robert had a private conversation. The defendant and the repairman then left together. On the way back to North Haven, the defendant told the repairman about the incident and declared that he was going to give the victim a beating.

                violation of General Statutes § 53a-48(a).  1  The jury could have found the following facts: The victim was a sixteen-year-old state ward under the supervision of the department of children and youth services, living in West Haven with the defendant's sister, Lucille, her husband, Robert, and their children.  The defendant and the victim did not like each other.  The victim occasionally struck Lucille on the shoulder.  At approximately 11 a. m. on May 5, 1978, Lucille left the house and went to New Haven to help her husband[186 Conn. 698]  start his truck.  The victim remained home with Lucille's three-year-old daughter.  Her older, five-year-old daughter was due home from school shortly thereafter.  When Lucille returned around noon, she found her older daughter in a bedroom and the victim walking out of it buckling his pants.  The victim left the house.  Lucille examined her older daughter and found evidence that she had been sexually assaulted
                

Between five and ten minutes after they left, Robert told his wife that he had told the defendant about the incident. He then went to North Haven and brought the defendant back to the house. They remained there, drinking, in the kitchen. The defendant demanded to know all of the details of the incident. When the victim came in, he was invited to drink with them. When the victim initially refused, the defendant taunted him into changing his mind. He and the victim arm wrestled and the defendant grew upset because he lost most of the matches. All three left the residence together at approximately 9:40 p. m. in Robert's car.

Sometime between 10 p. m. and 11 p. m. that same evening, the defendant went into a restaurant where his uncle worked, took him aside, asked him for a shovel and said "we" or "he" "snuffed" or "wasted somebody." Thinking that the defendant was joking, his uncle replied, "(w)ell, get it out of here and throw it in the river." The next day, the victim's body was found in the river behind the restaurant.

Robert returned home at about 2 a. m. on May 6, covered with blood. The defendant went to his sister's home between 8 a. m. and 11 a. m. that day. He told Lucille and Robert he threw the weapon in the river. He then threw some live shells into a sewer in front of their house. Lucille pointed out that their car had bullet holes and blood stains in the backseat area. It was then that the defendant described how he had shot the victim and how her husband participated in the plan. He told her to report the victim missing but not to tell the police about the incident with her older daughter.

On May 8, the defendant went to the North Haven police station to answer questions about the homicide. He claimed to have remained home that entire evening after being dropped off by the repairman.

At a meeting including the defendant and Lucille and Robert, the family arranged to remove the blood stains from the car and install a new backseat.

On February 14, 1979, the defendant told Lucille's neighbor, Rosemary, that his brother-in-law Robert had killed the victim. In her first statement to the police, Lucille implicated her husband only because she did not want her brother to go to jail. She In this appeal, the defendant raises five issues: (1) whether the court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements made at the police station; (2) whether the court erred in admitting a statement made by the defendant as indicating consciousness of guilt; (3) whether the court erred in denying his motion for mistrial made when Lucille testified that he had previously served time in jail; (4) whether the court erred in giving the jury charge by misstating the testimony, improperly instructing the jurors on consciousness of guilt, and failing to instruct them accurately on the elements necessary to establish the crime of conspiracy; and (5) whether the court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence and after the verdict on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence.

subsequently told them of the defendant's admission that he had killed the victim.

I POLICE INTERROGATION

The defendant moved to suppress a signed statement he gave the police upon the conclusion of an interrogation conducted at the North Haven police headquarters. The defendant claims that this statement was procured in violation of his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States constitution. His specific claim is that he was subjected to custodial interrogation in the absence of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1629-1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is undisputed that no Miranda warnings were given. The state contends, however, that since the defendant was not in custody during the questioning, no Miranda warnings were required. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Since the defendant does not challenge the voluntariness of the statement, the limited question before us is whether the defendant was in custody at the time of the questioning. "By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.

The defendant's statement was given to the police under the following circumstances: On May 7, 1978, the defendant was invited to talk with the North Haven police either at the police department or his place of employment, at his choice. The defendant made an appointment to talk with the police at the stationhouse after work the next day and went there voluntarily. Once he arrived at the North Haven police department, he and Detective Stephen Smith engaged in some small talk and the detective told him the police were investigating the victim's case and looking for information about the victim's background. Either Detective Joseph DePoto, who was also present, or Smith told the defendant he was free to leave at any time. Neither detective gave the defendant Miranda warnings. Upon inquiry by Smith about his whereabouts on the evening of May 5 and the early morning hours of May 6 the defendant responded that he had gone to his sister's residence with the repairman and that later the repairman took him home where he remained for the remainder of the evening. He claimed that he and his brother-in-law were drinking there until 1:30 a. m. when his brother-in-law left. After the defendant gave the police a signed statement he left the station. During the questioning the defendant was not inhibited in any way nor was he subjected to any threats. He was not arrested until nine months later. In view of these circumstances, we find that the defendant was not in custody at the time of questioning. The trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the statement.

II STATEMENT REFLECTING CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT

A statement of a party is generally admissible as an admission to establish the proof of matters stated therein. State The defendant while implicitly conceding its relevance nevertheless claims that because the prejudicial effect of the evidence clearly outweighed its probative value, the statement, even if relevant, should have been excluded. There are situations where the potential prejudicial effect of relevant evidence would suggest its exclusion. These are: (1) where the facts offered may unduly arouse the jury's emotions, hostility or sympathy, (2) where the proof and answering evidence it provokes may create a side issue that will unduly distract the jury from the main issues, (3) where the evidence offered and the counterproof will consume an undue amount of time, and (4) where the defendant, having no reasonable ground to anticipate the evidence, is unfairly surprised and unprepared to meet it. McCormick, Evidence (2d Ed.) § 185, pp. 439-40. None of these dangers is present here. Obviously if the defendant lied about his whereabouts on the evening in question, it is a fair inference that he had something to hide. When other evidence established that there was a strong connection between the defendant and the victim on the evening in question it could be inferred that the defendant's misstatement to the police was an attempt on his part to cover up his involvement in the homicide. What his statement revealed was interesting; what it concealed may have been devastating. Prejudice is not measured by the significance of the evidence which is relevant but by the impact of that which is...