State v. Angel C.

137 Conn.App. 84

46 A.3d 1020

STATE of Connecticut

v.ANGEL C.^*

No. 34019.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 22, 2012.

Decided July 24, 2012.

Auden Grogins, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Melissa L. Streeto, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Edward R. Narus, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

ALVORD, ESPINOSA and SULLIVAN, Js.

ESPINOSA, J.

The defendant, Angel C., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70 (a)(1), sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–71 (a)(4), sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–72a (a)(1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(2). ¹ The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to suppress evidence and (2) admitted certain evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 1996, when the female victim was six years of age, the defendant and the victim's mother began a long-term romantic relationship while living in Peru. The defendant and the victim's mother later had two children together, moved to East Hartford and were married. The victim lived at the family residence with her half-siblings, her mother and the defendant. The defendant exercised a great deal of influence and control over what occurred in the household, such that the victim was subservient to him and feared him. From the time that the victim was ten years of age, the defendant forcibly engaged in frequent and secretivesexual activities with her. These activities began with the defendant touching the victim's private parts over her clothing with his hands and penis. They escalated to the defendant digitally penetrating the victim's vagina. The defendant compelled the victim to view pornography and to masturbate him. Finally, from the time that the victim was fourteen years of age until she was eighteen years of age, the defendant engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse with the victim on nearly a daily basis.

For many years, the victim, who was emotionally traumatized by the defendant's assaultive conduct, did not bring the defendant's activities to light because of the defendant's role as the head of the family, her fear that doing so would tear the family apart and her fear that the defendant would abuse her siblings. Additionally, the defendant often told the victim that he loved her and bought gifts for her. When the victim was a senior in high school, she began to experience panic attacks. During an ensuing psychiatric evaluation, she revealed the sexual abuse committed by her stepfather, the defendant. The defendant's arrest followed.² The present appeal followed the defendant's conviction and sentencing.

I

First, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress inculpatory statements that he made on January 11, 2008, to Patrick Sullivan, an East Hartford police officer, prior to his arrest. We disagree.

Prior to trial, the defendant filed a written motion to suppress the statements on the ground that his Miranda rights were violated.³ After holding an evidentiary hearing, the court issued a memorandum of decision denying the defendant's motion. The following facts found by the court are relevant to the defendant's claim: “On November 16, 2007, the East Hartford police department received a complaint that [the victim] had been sexually assaulted by her stepfather, the defendant, over a period of seven years. Officer Patrick Sullivan from the department's juvenile division investigated the complaint. Based on the allegations, the defendant was his only suspect.

“Officer Sullivan first met the defendant on November 16, 2007. On that day he went to the home where the defendant and his wife, [W], and stepdaughter, [the victim], resided. The officer advised the defendant of the allegations made and asked the defendant to leave the residence during the pendency of the investigation. The defendant complied with the officer's request. All communication was in English. The defendant appeared to understand the conversation and responded appropriately.

“On November 29, 2007, Officer Sullivan called the defendant at his place of employment and requested that the defendant come to the East Hartford police department for an interview. The defendant chose the date and time for that interview, the afternoon of December 6, 2007. He provided his own transportation both to and from the police department. At the time of the interview, the defendant was still a suspect but he was not under arrest. He was not in custody.

“Officer Sullivan spoke with the defendant in a room located in the police department juvenile division. It was a standard interview room with a desk, chairs, a television and mirror. Aware that the defendant was born in Peru, Officer Sullivan asked that Officer Rosario, a bilingual officer, observe the interview and translate if necessary.

“Officer Sullivan spoke with the defendant in English. The defendant responded in English. He did not exhibit any difficulty comprehending the English language. Officer Sullivan could understand the defendant's responses.

“Officer Sullivan read the defendant's Miranda rights. The defendant acknowledged the individual rights, initialing each on the police form used by Officer Sullivan. The defendant also provided his name, age, and education. He stated that he could read, write, and understand English. The defendant was aware that he could leave the interview room at any time.

“Officer Sullivan advised the defendant that [the victim] had made some serious allegations involving the defendant, specifically sexual assault. The defendant denied all allegations, stating that there had never been any sexual contact.

“The first interview lasted approximately one hour. At the conclusion, Officer Sullivan offered the defendant an opportunity to [submit to] a polygraph [examination]. The defendant was hesitant and asked to speak with counsel before committing to a lie detector test. At that point the interview ended and the defendant left the police station.

“Several weeks later, Officer Sullivan phoned the defendant and asked if the defendant had consulted an attorney about the polygraph test offer. At that time, the defendant had not made any decision.

“After that conversation, the defendant met [with W], who confronted him and demanded the truth. Initially the defendant denied any sexual contact. He subsequently told [W] that he and [the victim] were in love. He claimed the romance began after [the victim's] sixteenth birthday and eventually progressed to sexual intercourse.

“[W] told Officer Sullivan about her meeting with the defendant. Based on [W's] information, Officer Sullivan phoned the defendant and requested an interview. He and the defendant agreed to meet at the East Hartford police station on January 11, 2008. Once again the defendant provided his own transportation to the police station. He and Officer Sullivan communicated in English. The interview occurred in the same room that the parties had used in December, 2007.

“As the defendant and Officer Sullivan walked to the interview room, the defendant indicated that he needed to talk. The officer read the defendant's Miranda rights. The defendant again acknowledged each right and signed the accompanying waiver form. The defendant did not have any difficulty either understanding the officer or responding to questions.

“Officer Sullivan advised the defendant that [W] had provided additional information about the pending allegations. The defendant at first denied meeting [with W]. Later in the interview the defendant admitted he had met [with] his wife. He further acknowledged that he had sexual relations with [the victim], but claimed that their relationship began after [the victim's] sixteenth birthday. The defendant stated that he and [the victim] were in love and that all sexual contact had been consensual.

“At that point Officer Sullivan advised the defendant that he intended to apply for a warrant. The interview ended and the defendant left the police station.

“Throughout both interviews, the defendant was not in custody. He was free to leave the officer's presence at any time. He could have terminated the interviews at any time. He was not under pressure to answer questions.”

In his motion, the defendant asserted that he was not properly advised of his constitutional rights; he did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his constitutional rights; the statements were not voluntarily made; and the statements were the fruit of an illegal arrest. The court based its denial of the motion on several grounds. First, it concluded that the defendant was not in custody at the time that he made the statements at issue. The court stated: “[T]he interviews were not custodial. There was no evidence that the defendant was restrained at the time of the statements. He was free to move about. Officer Sullivan did not threaten the use of force. The defendant failed to establish a custodial interrogation.” Alternatively, the court concluded that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Later, at trial, the state presented evidence of the defendant's inculpatory statements to Sullivan.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court should have suppressed the statement that he gave to Sullivan on January 11, 2008, because it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.⁴ He challenges the court's determination that he was not in custody at the time he made the statements at issue. He argues that, in light of all of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation, a...