State v. Griffin, SC 20439
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | MULLINS, J. |
| Citation | 339 Conn. 631,262 A.3d 44 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Bobby GRIFFIN |
| Decision Date | 22 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | SC 20439 |
339 Conn. 631
262 A.3d 44
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Bobby GRIFFIN
SC 20439
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued June 1, 2020
Officially released* July 22, 2021
Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, John P. Doyle, Jr., executive assistant state's attorney, and Sean P. McGuinness, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Maura Barry Grinalds and Darcy McGraw filed a brief for the Connecticut Innocence Project et al. as amici curiae.
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
MULLINS, J.
On October 14, 2013, the victim, Nathaniel Bradley, was fatally shot by someone who was attempting to rob him. After receiving a tip from a confidential informant, the police focused their investigation on the defendant, Bobby Griffin. The police discovered the rifle used in the murder hidden in the attic of the defendant's residence. After a three hour and thirty-eight minute interrogation, the defendant confessed that he shot and killed the victim while attempting to rob him. The defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), criminal attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of
General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (2) and 53a-49 (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (2) and 53a-48 (a).1 The defendant also was convicted, following a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-217 (a) (1), as amended by No. 13-3, § 44, of the 2013 Public Acts (P.A. 13-3).2
In this direct appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motions to suppress (1) the firearm and related evidence seized from his residence, which he claims were discovered as a result of an unlawful search, and (2) the incriminating statements he made during his interrogation at the police station, which he claims were involuntary. We disagree with the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The fact finder reasonably could have found the following facts. On the evening of October 14, 2013, the defendant was at a social gathering on Goffe Terrace in New
Haven with Nathan Johnson, Ebony Wright, and several others. Throughout the evening, the defendant was openly carrying around a Hi-Point nine millimeter assault rifle, which he kept inside of a bag that was slung around his neck. At some point during the evening, the defendant told Johnson that he was looking for someone to rob. Johnson then showed the defendant a list of individuals who previously had sold him marijuana that he kept in his phone. The defendant scrolled through the list and selected the victim as the person he wanted to rob. At the defendant's direction, Wright contacted the victim and arranged for him to meet her
on Goffe Terrace under the pretense that she wanted to purchase marijuana from him.
Soon thereafter, the victim pulled up to the curb next to where the defendant, Wright and Johnson were walking, and Wright identified herself as the person who had contacted him. While Wright and the victim were talking, the defendant stepped into a dark alleyway, put on a mask and took out the assault rifle, which he had been carrying in his bag. The defendant approached the victim, who was standing by the trunk of his car, pointed the rifle at him and demanded that he hand over all the valuables he had in his possession. The victim told the defendant that he "could have everything" and began walking away from the defendant toward the driver's seat of his car. The defendant then shot the victim twice in the back at close range. The victim died from his wounds.
The defendant, Johnson and Wright fled the scene on foot. The defendant returned to his residence at 374 Peck Street in New Haven, where he hid the rifle in his attic. Two spent nine millimeter shell casings were left at the scene.
A few days after the shooting, the police received a tip from a confidential informant that the defendant had admitted his involvement in the homicide and was still in possession of the rifle he had used in committing it. Shortly after midnight, on October 20, 2013, the police searched the defendant's residence at 374 Peck Street and discovered the assault rifle, several magazines, one of which had an extended clip, and multiple boxes of ammunition in the attic. A ballistics analysis revealed that the two shell casings found at the scene of the shooting had been fired from the rifle.
Thereafter, the police arrested the defendant and transported him to the New Haven Police Department in the early morning hours of October 20, 2013. At
approximately 10:30 a.m. that morning, two detectives interviewed the defendant. Before questioning the defendant, the detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda3 rights, and he waived those rights. Then, after approximately three hours of questioning, the defendant confessed that he had shot and killed the victim while attempting to rob him. The interview was recorded, as required by state law.
The state charged the defendant with murder, felony murder, criminal attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, the defendant filed motions to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of his home and the statements he had made to the police during his interrogation at the police station. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued memoranda of decision denying both motions.
After a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, felony murder and the robbery counts. The trial court found
the defendant guilty of criminal possession of a firearm. After vacating the defendant's felony murder conviction; see footnote 1 of this opinion; the court imposed a total effective sentence of ninety years imprisonment without the possibility of release.
This direct appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
I
The defendant first claims that the trial court should have suppressed the rifle, ammunition, and magazines found in his home. Specifically, he argues that the police discovered these items as a result of an unlawful search of his residence, in violation of the fourth amendment
to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution. We disagree.
The following additional facts, as found by the trial court in its memorandum of decision denying the defendant's motion to suppress, are relevant to this claim. On October 18, 2013, Detective Martin Podsiad of the New Haven Police Department received a telephone call from a confidential informant who had served as a source of information for Podsiad in prior criminal investigations. The informant told Podsiad that he had recently had a conversation with the defendant in which the defendant admitted that he murdered the victim and indicated that he wanted to sell the rifle he had used to do so. The defendant sought to sell the rifle to the informant in exchange for cash and a handgun. Podsiad instructed the informant to arrange to purchase the rifle from the defendant with police funds. Podsiad determined, through a search of police department databases, that the defendant resided at 374 Peck Street in New Haven and had multiple felony convictions.
Podsiad believed that, in order to obtain a search warrant, he needed to verify the location of both the rifle and the defendant. At Podsiad's instruction, the informant arranged to meet the defendant at his residence the following evening, on October 19, 2013. At sometime between 6:30 and 8:30 p.m., Podsiad dropped the informant off at 374 Peck Street. Podsiad waited for the informant. The informant reemerged a few minutes later and, on the ride back to the police station, informed Podsiad that he saw a rifle and multiple boxes of ammunition in the defendant's bedroom. As he and Podsiad planned, the informant had given the defendant some money to place a hold on the rifle and told the defendant that he would return shortly thereafter with a handgun to complete the sale.
Podsiad immediately began preparing an application for a search warrant for 374 Peck Street. The police
set up surveillance around the building complex to prevent the defendant from leaving before the warrant could be obtained. They also began coordinating with a SWAT team to make the entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bouvier
...history further supports the court's conclusion that he understood the rights he maintained while under arrest. See State v. Griffin , 339 Conn. 631, 688, 262 A.3d 44 (2021) (noting that defendant's prior experience in criminal justice system indicated defendant's "[full] underst[anding] [o......
-
State v. Brandon
...own review of the audio recording of the first interview, that finding is equally entitled to deference. See, e.g., State v. Griffin , 339 Conn. 631, 669, 262 A.3d 44 (2021) ("[a] trial court's findings are entitled to deference, even if they are predicated on documentary evidence that this......
-
State v. Brandon
...its own review of the audio recording of the first interview, that finding is equally entitled to deference. See, e.g., State v. Griffin, 339 Conn. 631, 669, 262 A.3d 44 (2021) ("[a] trial court's findings are entitled to deference, even if they are predicated on documentary evidence that t......
-
State v. Bouvier
...history further supports the court's conclusion that he understood the rights he maintained while under arrest. See State v. Griffin, 339 Conn. 631, 688, A.3d (2021) (noting that defendant's prior experience in criminal justice system indicated defendant's ‘‘[full] underst[anding] [of] the ......
-
BUDGETING FOR EXONEREE COMPENSATION: INDEMNIFYING EXONEREES NOT OFFICIALS TO DETER FUTURE WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS.
...which is more likely to reasonably lead to a false confession, will be considered per se coercive). (101.) See State v. Griffin, 262 A.3d 44, 84 (Conn. 2021) (holding defendant's confession voluntary even though "interrogators told the defendant, falsely, that two eyewitnesses had identifie......