State v. Rizzo, No. CR 97-262883 (CT 6/29/2005), CR 97-262883
| Decision Date | 29 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 97-262883,CR 97-262883 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | State of Connecticut v. Todd Rizzo Opinion No.: 89384 |
This is a capital felony case in which the defendant, Todd Rizzo, moves to suppress all of the written and oral statements he made to the police, as well as all physical evidence seized as the fruits of the written and oral statements. The defendant also seeks to suppress his written confession because the "original" statement has been lost.
The defendant pleaded guilty to murder in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-54a(a), and to capital felony in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-54b(9) (Rev. to 2001). In the penalty phase of the proceedings, a jury found that the state had proved an aggravating factor, the defendant had proved a mitigating factor or factors, and the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factor or factors. Accordingly, a sentence of death was imposed by the Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the sentence of death and remanded the case for a new penalty phase hearing. State. v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171, 833 A.2d 363 (2003). On remand, the defendant waived his right to have the penalty phase hearing conducted before a jury and instead has elected it to be heard before a three-judge panel.
Specifically, on May 4, 2005, the defendant moved to suppress: (1) any and all oral statements he made to the police on October 1, 1997, and October 2, 1997; and (2) a written confession he gave at the Waterbury police station. The defendant also moves to suppress the following items of physical evidence seized as fruits of the written and oral statements; (1) the victim's bicycle that the police seized from Fulkerson Drive; (2) a drilling hammer; (3) a bloody shirt; (4) two plastic bags that the police seized from the defendant's workplace; (5) the defendant's jeans and boots (6); a flashlight, kitchen bags, and video tapes; (7) a blood stained masonite cover from the defendant's automobile; (8) a mental health evaluation; (9) the defendant's original orders from the United States Marines; and (10) a time card and a letter that the police seized from the defendant's home and vehicle.
The defendant asserts in this motion that the oral and written statements he made to the Waterbury Police Department, and the physical evidence obtained as a result of these statements, were obtained in violation of his rights under the fourth,1 fifth,2 sixth,3 eighth,4 and fourteenth5 amendments to the United States constitution and the constitution of Connecticut, article first, §7,6 §8,7 and §9.8
In addition, the defendant asserts that he did not consent to a warrantless search of his home and automobile. Finally, he asserts that his state constitutional right to due process requires that this Court suppress his written confession because the original has been lost and the State intends to introduce a "copy" of the statement at the penalty phase hearing. Similarly, he argues, as an evidentiary matter, that the copy of the written statement must be excluded pursuant to the best evidence rule, as set forth in §10-1 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.9
The Court heard testimony and argument on this matter on May 10th and 11th, 2005.10 For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion to suppress is denied.11
The Court finds the following facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence. During the evening of September 30, 1997, the defendant murdered the victim, then age thirteen, at the defendant's home in Waterbury, located at 15 Marion Ave. He did this by luring the victim into the backyard of the home, where he bludgeoned the victim to death by repeated blows to the head with a three-pound sledgehammer.
The following day, October 1, 1997, the Waterbury Police Department developed information potentially linking the defendant to the murder. At approximately 4:00 p.m., officers from the Waterbury Police Department went to Marion Ave. to conduct a surveillance of the defendant's home and await his return home from work. During this surveillance, two officers, Sergeant Eugene Coyle and Detective Clement Shagensky, waited at one end of Marion Ave., dressed in plainclothes in an unmarked police car. Two other officers from the Waterbury Police Department were placed inside a house across the street from the defendant's home. Several members of the Waterbury Police Department's Gang Task Force were stationed at the other end of Marion Ave. These officers were dressed in police uniforms.
At approximately 5:00 p.m., the defendant arrived at his residence driving a red Isuzu Impulse passenger car. Before the defendant entered his home, the defendant was approached by Detectives Coyle and Shagensky. The members of the Gang Task Force also approached the defendant at about the same time. Coyle asked the defendant if he would be willing to go to the police station and answer some questions regarding the murder of the victim. None of the officers had their weapons drawn and the police would have let him leave if he had so requested. The defendant agreed to accompany them to the police station.
The defendant got into Detective Coyle's car and sat alone in the backseat. He was not handcuffed. Detective Coyle drove, and Det. Shagensky rode in the front passenger seat.
At the police station, the defendant was placed in an office and was questioned by three Waterbury Police officers. Before the questioning began. Det. Coyle orally advised the defendant of his Miranda rights by reading him the required Miranda warnings from an advisement of rights card. The defendant, who had completed high school, indicated that he was able to read and write in the English language. The defendant was then handed the card and he read the rights aloud. At this time, he indicated that he understood his rights and he signed and dated the card. The defendant also wrote on the card the approximate time that he was read his rights, which was 6:00 p.m. Mr. Rizzo then orally indicated that he was willing to waive his rights and speak with the detectives. He did not request the assistance of a lawyer.
For several minutes thereafter, the detectives questioned him about the murder of the victim. The defendant denied any knowledge of the murder or that he knew the victim. Detective Coyle told the defendant that he would like to take a look around his house and look inside his car. The defendant then orally consented to a search of his house and car. The defendant was handed a consent to search form. The form identified the house and car the police sought to search and the police's legal obligation to obtain a search warrant if he was unwilling to consent to the search. The defendant checked the appropriate boxes on the form indicating that he was willing to consent to the search of his home and automobile. The defendant signed and dated the form and also indicated the approximate time, 6:00 p.m. The Court recognizes that this time is not precise, but does not credit the defendant's assertion that the consent was not given until approximately 8:00 p.m.
Several police officers and the defendant then returned to the defendant's house, arriving approximately at 6:45 p.m. Sergeant Gary Pelosi began a search of the car, while Detective Coyle, Detective Robert Cammilletti and the defendant entered the house. Detective Pelosi then entered the house and informed Detective Coyle that he had found something in the car. Detective Coyle proceeded to the car where he observed that the rug had been pulled back in the rear portion of the car, revealing a masonite board that appeared to be smeared with blood.
Detective Coyle returned to the house and brought the defendant out to the car. When he showed the defendant the smear on the board and asked him what it was, the defendant said, "I feel sick," and "I did it." The defendant's confession prompted the police, in an abundance of legal caution, to terminate the search of the car and house, and to secure the location until search warrants could be obtained.
Detective Coyle then placed the defendant in the rear seat of a police car and questioned the defendant further about the murder. The defendant then made a series of incriminating comments to Det. Coyle. Detective Coyle, Sergeant Pelosi and the defendant then drove to Fulkerson Drive in Waterbury, where the defendant showed them where he had left the victim's body and bicycle. They then drove to Arett Sales in Cheshire, where the defendant showed them the trash compactor into which he had thrown the sledgehammer and some bloody clothing.
The defendant was subsequently driven to the Waterbury police station, where he arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. The defendant was again advised of his Miranda rights, and he read, signed and dated a second advisement of rights card. The defendant indicated he understood his rights. He agreed to give and sign a written statement.
The defendant then gave an oral statement, which was typed into a computer by Detective Coyle. The defendant was asked some preliminary questions, which he answered, and then proceeded to give a narrative version of the events in question. This process took approximately one hour.
After the statement had been typed into the computer, the defendant was given an opportunity to read the statement on the monitor and to make any appropriate additions or corrections. The defendant made one minor correction to the statement.
The statement was then printed from the computer onto a pre-printed Waterbury Police Department form, entitled "Voluntary Statement." Each page of the pre-printed form itself contained three pages, separated by carbon paper. The form had to be hand-fed into the printer. The top page of the form was white, with the second and third pages being yellow and pink, respectively. Consequently, each page...
To continue reading
Request your trial