State v. Piorkowski
Decision Date | 02 September 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 15572,15572 |
Citation | 700 A.2d 1146,243 Conn. 205 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Michael PIORKOWSKI. |
Elizabeth M. Inkster, Assistant Public Defender, with whom was Joseph G. Bruckmann, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Judith Rossi, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J. Callahan, State's Attorney, and James Bernardi, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (State).
Before BORDEN, BERDON, NORCOTT, PALMER and McDONALD, JJ.
The defendant, Michael Piorkowski, was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). 1 On February 16 1993, the defendant filed a motion to suppress two incriminating statements that he made to Norwalk police on October 21 and 22, 1992. On September 7, 1993, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The defendant then entered a written nolo contendere plea conditioned on the right to appeal from the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress. The defendant now appeals 2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that the trial court properly had denied his motion to suppress. State v. Piorkowski, 43 Conn.App. 209, 217, 682 A.2d 582 (1996). We granted the defendant's petition for certification limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, 3 the defendant's waiver of counsel regarding his October 22, 1992 statement was not rendered invalid by the fact that the waiver was made without the presence of counsel?" State v. Piorkowski, 239 Conn. 943, 686 A.2d 122 (1996). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
Our prior opinion in this case; State v. Piorkowski, 236 Conn. 388, 672 A.2d 921 (1996); sets forth the relevant factual and procedural history. "On October 21, 1992, the defendant was arrested for the murder of Tim Lee. He moved to suppress two statements that he had made to the police, one on October 21, 1992, and the other on October 22, 1992. With respect to the October 21 statement, the defendant asserted in his motion that it was: (1) obtained without a valid waiver of his Miranda 4 rights; and (2) a product of a violation of his right to a prompt arraignment under General Statutes §§ 54-1c and 54-1g. 5 With respect to the October 22 statement, the defendant asserted that it was: (1) a fruit of his illegal interrogation on October 21; and (2) independently inadmissible because it was the product of a violation of his right to counsel under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, that had attached at his arraignment on October 21.
(Citations omitted.) State v. Piorkowski, supra, 236 Conn. at 391-97, 672 A.2d 921.
In his argument to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his October 22 statement because the police obtained the statement in the absence of his appointed attorney and thereby violated his right to counsel under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. 7 State v. Piorkowski, supra, 43 Conn.App. at 211, 682 A.2d 582. The defendant urged the Appellate Court to adopt a per se rule under the Connecticut constitution requiring the presence of counsel whenever a defendant waives his right to have counsel present. Id. at 218-19, 682 A.2d 582. Discussing the defendant's request, the Appellate Court noted that this court, in State v. Jones, 205 Conn. 638, 534 A.2d 1199 (1987), had declined to "adopt a bright line rule [requiring] that once the right to counsel attaches, there can be no valid waiver of that right without the presence of counsel." State v. Piorkowski, supra, 43 Conn.App. at 220, 682 A.2d 582. Consequently, the Appellate Court reasoned that it could not adopt such a rule. Id. The Appellate Court therefore rejected the defendant's claim and concluded that "where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Purcell
...under the requisite analytical process. See, e.g., State v. Patel , 327 Conn. 932, 939–40, 171 A.3d 1037 (2017) ; State v. Piorkowski , 243 Conn. 205, 214, 700 A.2d 1146 (1997) ; State v. Barton , 219 Conn. 529, 538–40, 594 A.2d 917 (1991).Although this court has not previously addressed th......
-
State v. Holmes
...protects a criminal defendant at critical stages of the proceedings from adversarial government agents ...." State v. Piorkowski , 243 Conn. 205, 215, 700 A.2d 1146 (1997) ; see also Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) (right to counsel is necessa......
-
State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
... ... 171]any confession be rendered inadmissible under [49 A.3d 614] General Statutes 541c. 72 See, e.g., State v. Piorkowski, 43 Conn.App. 209, 217, 682 A.2d 582 (1996), aff'd, 243 Conn. 205, 700 A.2d 1146 (1997); State v. Hardy, 11 Conn.App. 238, 23940, 526 A.2d 562 (1987) (per curiam). Indeed, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that the police were required to inform him when exactly he would have ... ...
-
Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc.
... ... The plaintiff next argues that the requested charge did not comply with Practice Book § 318 10 because it did not state the evidence that supported the allegation of how the negligence of Sarette, Electric Boat and the plaintiff combined to cause the injuries. Our ... ...
-
TABLE OF CASES
...161 Conn. 382 (1971) 2-1 State v. Fayne, 260 Conn. 446 (2002) 6-1 State v. Felletier, 196 Conn. 32 (1985) 6-1 State v. Fiorkowski, 243 Conn. 205 (1997) 2-10 State v. Rapuano, 192 Conn. 228 (1984) 1-8:10, 1-11:1 State v. Raymond, 88 Conn. 148 (1914) 6-1 State v. Santiago, 143 Conn. App. 26 (......
-
A relational Sixth Amendment during interrogation.
...71 IOWA L. REV. 975, 980-81 (1986) (identifying "parity" as a core value of the Sixth Amendment). (298) See State v. Piorkowski, 700 A.2d 1146, 1152 (Conn. 1997) (observing "we always have recognized that the right to counsel is a personal right" (emphasis (299) See Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S.......
-
CHAPTER 2 - 2-10 COMMUNICATION WITH REPRESENTED PERSONS
...that the Connecticut rule does.[182] Massameno v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 234 Conn. 539 (1995).[183] State v. Piorkowski, 243 Conn. 205 (1997). See also State v. Gaines, 36 Conn. App. 454 (1994) (because state unaware defendant had spoken with lawyer, issue of whether Conn. Rules of ......
-
Significant Developments in Criminal Law 1996-1997
...A.2d 181 (1997) (Joyce II). 52. Id. at 290-296. 53. 46 Conn. APP. 350, 700 A.2d 680 (1997). 54. 243 Conn. 927, 701 A.2d 659 (1997). 55. 243 Conn. 205, 700 A.2d 1146 56. Id, at 221. 57. 240 Conn. 708, 694 A.2d 766 (1997). 5 8. Id. at 724. 59. 44 Conn. App. 162, 688 A.2d 876 (1997). 60. 498 U......