State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 26 January 1965
• Citation: 206 A.2d 835,152 Conn. 343
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Harlis MILLER. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 835

206 A.2d 835

152 Conn. 343

STATE of Connecticut v. Harlis MILLER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 26, 1965.

Herbert J. Bundock, Public Defender, with whom was G. Sarsfield Ford, Asst. Public Defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Otto J. Saur, State's Atty., with whom, on the brief were John F. McGowan and Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., Asst. State's Attys., for the appellee (state).

Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, ALCORN, COMLEY and COLES, JJ.

COMLEY, Associate Justice.

A jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation that he be imprisoned for life in accordance with General Statutes § 53-10 as it existed prior to its amendment by Public Acts 1963, Nos. 573 and 588. Because of the nature of the assignments of error, we are spared the necessity of recounting the details of a particularly revolting and atrocious crime.

As a background for the discussion of the defendant's claims, it is sufficient to point out that from the evidence offered by the parties the jury could have found these facts: The victim of the murder was Isabel Sillan, who lived in a singlefamily house on a one-acre plot in a heavily wooded area of Westport. On November 12, 1962, her husband, Pierre Sillan, Sr., had gone to this office in New York City and Mrs. Sillan was alone in the house with her daughter, Gail, who was fourteen years of age. The defendant had been engaged to work as a gardener at another residence in the neighborhood but, instead of reporting there, went to the Sillan home, where he had also worked serveral times in the past, and entered the house before 9 a. m. There followed, during most of the morning, a period of violence in which both women were attacked repeatedly in several different rooms. Gail, who survived, lost consciousness several times and was able to give only a fragmentary description of what happened. Toward the end of the morning, the defendant attempted to strangle both women with a clothesline. In the case of Mrs. Sillan, he was successful and she died. In the case of Gail, she lost consciousness but revived.

After an interval, the defendant wrapped Gail, who was dressed in a nightgown and bed jacket, in a blanket, carried her down to his automobile, and placed her on the floor in the rear of the car, with her hands and feet tied. After driving around for some time, he moved her to the trunk compartment and closed the lid. When it was just about dusk, he removed her from the trunk, placed her on the rear seat, and tied her hands behind her back and to the rear door handle of the car. He then left her to get a sandwich. He returned shortly and, after telling her that the sandwich would not be ready for half an hour, untied her, lifted up her nightgown and, in her language, 'did something to her.' Afterwards, he tied her up again in the same manner and left to get her a glass of water, for which she had asked. While he was gone, she managed to free herself and went to a nearby residence, from which the police were summoned. In the meantime, Sillan had returned from New York City and had found his wife's body.

On the morning of Tuesday, November 13, the defendant and a woman with whom he had been living left Connecticut with the intention of going to Florida. They stopped at his mother's house in Soperton, Georgia, where on November 16 he was arrested by the federal authorities and taken to the county jail at Augusta. On November 17, a county detective from the state's attorney's office in Bridgeport and a sergeant of the Westport police department talked with the defendant in the jail at Augusta. They also talked to him the next day and, having discovered that his car had been left in Soperton, went to that town and examined it without a search warrant. The car was later returned to Connecticut and was examined by members of the Westport police department. Certain objects taken from the car were submitted to the state laboratory in Hartford for examination. Again, no search warrant was obtained. At the trial, testimony was admitted, over objection, concerning the results of the search of the car both in Georgia and in Connecticut, including the finding of human hair identified as Gail's, on the crank handle of a rear window and on the rear seat and floor, and the finding of bloodstains on the cover of the rear seat, the blood being of the same type as Gail's.

If this evidence was obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure, the defendant's objection to it should have been sustained. This is the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, which has superseded our earlier rule that such evidence was admissible even though illegally obtained. State v. CelVecchio, 149 Conn. 567, 572, 182 A.2d 402; State v. Carol, 120 Conn. 573, 575, 181 A. 714; State v. Reynolds, 101 Conn. 224, 231, 125 A. 636. Not every search made without a warrant is illegal. For example, a search which is an incident to a lawful arrest is proper. State v. DelVecchio, supra, 149 Conn. 573, 182 A.2d 402; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 314, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. A search cannot be regarded as an incident to a lawful arrest where it is remote from it either in time or place. ...