State v. Haughwout

339 Conn. 747

262 A.3d 791

STATE of Connecticut

v.Austin Grant HAUGHWOUT

SC 20547

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 24, 2021

Officially released July 23, 2021^*

Jennifer Bourn, supervisory assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael A. Gailor, state's attorney, and Russell C. Zentner, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

KAHN, J.

The defendant, Austin Grant Haughwout, appeals from judgments of conviction on charges arising from, respectively, two separate incidents between him and various officers of the Clinton Police Department in July, 2015. The defendant claims that evidence of certain events during the first incident, which occurred in the parking lot of a local library on the night of July 19, 2015, should have been suppressed because those events were the result of an unconstitutional investigatory detention. The state responds to this claim by arguing that, in light of the totality of the circumstances presented, the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant had been engaged in criminal activity and that an investigatory detention was, therefore, constitutional under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21–22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).¹ We disagree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the trial court's judgment of conviction as to the offenses relating to the incident that occurred on July 19, 2015. The defendant also claims that his conviction of two counts of assault of public safety personnel, specifically a peace officer, related to the second incident, which occurred inside of the Clinton Police Department on July 22, 2015, is infirm because (1) the state's evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (2) the trial court erred when instructing the jury. The state concedes that a new trial is required with respect to one of the assault charges due to instructional error but contends that the defendant's remaining claims lack merit. We agree with the state and, therefore, affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's judgment of conviction related to the incident that occurred on July 22, 2015.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our consideration of the present appeal. Shortly after 9 p.m. on the evening of July 19, 2015, Officer Alexieff Adrian Santiago drove past the Henry Carter Hull Library in the town of Clinton and observed a vehicle parked in an unlit corner of an adjacent parking lot.² Although the library had closed earlier that day, Santiago testified that the public frequented the parking lot after hours to use the book drop and to access the library's free Wi-Fi.³ Santiago turned his police cruiser around, drove into the parking lot, and observed a person walking "quickly" in the direction of the parked vehicle.⁴ A few moments later, that vehicle began to drive toward the exit of the parking lot.⁵ Santiago turned his cruiser's light bar on briefly and then motioned with his hand for the approaching vehicle to pull alongside of his cruiser. Santiago immediately recognized the defendant and asked him what he had been doing there. The defendant responded that he had been using the library's Wi-Fi at a picnic table adjacent to the parking lot but had left because he was being bothered by bugs.⁶

Santiago then decided to look behind the library and ordered the defendant to put his vehicle in park. The defendant then began to ask, repeatedly and continuously, whether Santiago suspected him of a crime. Santiago responded by telling the defendant, at least two more times, to put the vehicle in park. The defendant ignored those commands and abruptly began to drive toward the exit of the parking lot. While Santiago was turning his cruiser around to pursue the defendant, he noticed that a fence gate leading to a patio behind the library was open.⁷ Santiago then turned on his light bar, pulled his cruiser up behind the defendant at the exit of the parking lot, and radioed for backup. The defendant stopped his vehicle, called out to Santiago by exclaiming, "hey asshole," and then continued to shout out of the window. As another officer arrived, the defendant pulled out of the parking lot and began to drive north on Killingworth Turnpike. The officers engaged their sirens and followed. Although the defendant came to a halt a short distance away, he thereafter continuously argued with the officers, refused to put the transmission of his vehicle into park, and repeatedly declined to provide his license and registration when requested. The police officers ultimately decided to let the defendant leave the scene and to apply for an arrest warrant based on his conduct.

On July 22, 2015, the police called the defendant and informed him that they had obtained a warrant for his arrest in connection with the preceding events. The defendant arrived at the police station at approximately 8 p.m. that evening. Prior to entering the police station, the defendant, using a small video camera, began a recording of the event by noting the date, time, location, and purpose of his visit and reviewing an inventory of items he was taking with him into the station. After entering the station, he was explicitly told by Officer Christopher Varone that he was in police custody and under arrest. At that time, Varone noticed that the defendant was carrying a small video camera and stated that, for safety reasons, it would not be allowed into the booking area. At least twice, Varone patiently stated that he would secure the device and return it after the defendant was released on a promise to appear. Varone repeatedly indicated that, if the defendant did not comply, he would soon be forced to do so. During the course of this discussion, the defendant declined to give up the camera several times. At first, the defendant asserted that he needed to keep the camera for his own safety but then later stated that he was just going to leave the camera in the lobby. The defendant then walked a short distance away and placed his camera down on top of a display case. Varone told the defendant that the police department would not be responsible for the camera if the defendant chose to leave it in the lobby. Shortly thereafter, the defendant picked his camera back up and turned to leave the station, stating that he was going to secure the camera himself.

Varone grabbed the defendant in order to prevent him from leaving the station, the defendant resisted, and a struggle ensued. Varone forced the defendant to the floor while the defendant began kicking Varone repeatedly. Moments later, Officer James DePietro, Jr., ran into the lobby and joined the struggle in order to assist Varone. DePietro audibly ordered the defendant, who was still "flailing about," "kicking," and "struggling" at the time, to put his hands behind his back. The defendant refused to comply and was eventually restrained. The defendant then repeatedly ignored commands to get up off of the floor and walk on his own into the booking area. As a result, he was carried to the booking area with the assistance of additional officers.

The jury's understanding of the events in the lobby that day was informed by no less than three separate recordings: (1) a video from the camera in the defendant's hand, which had audio; (2) a video from a security camera in the lobby, which did not; and (3) an audio recording from a cell phone hidden inside of the defendant's pants. The defendant's camera was turned off shortly after DePietro joined the struggle in the lobby. The cell phone hidden in the defendant's pants recorded audio for the duration of the relevant events that day. The security camera recorded most of the events in the lobby, but was positioned at an angle that did not capture the portion of the incident that occurred after the defendant was on the floor. In addition, the evidence also included recordings from a camera in the booking area's cell block, which contain both video and audio, that show the defendant after he was carried out of the lobby.

Testimony offered at trial indicated that the defendant was about six feet tall and weighed approximately 160 pounds. Varone and DePietro were both physically smaller than the defendant. DePietro generally described the confrontation to the jury as follows: "It ... just wasn't, you know, going to the ground and putting handcuffs on [the defendant]. It was a fight, a full on fight. And he's a little bigger than I am. But, even with ... Varone and I, it was a full on fight." The defendant was eventually transported to a hospital by ambulance and then he was released back into the custody of the police. He was then taken back to the police station and processed without further incident.

Both Varone and DePietro sustained minor injuries that day. Specifically, Varone testified that the defendant had kicked him in the chest, face, and arm. Varone indicated that he experienced pain as a result of the kick to his arm, and a photograph was admitted into evidence showing light red bruising on the inside of his left bicep. Varone also testified that he injured one of his fingers while struggling with the defendant and that it went numb for a period of time. DePietro testified that his neck and back were "very sore from the fight" and that he ended up taking time off from work as a result.

The defendant was subsequently charged with various offenses for his conduct on both July 19 and July 22, 2015. Specifically, with respect to the incident that started in the library parking lot, the defendant was charged with interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a) and disobeying the direction of an officer while increasing the speed of a motor vehicle in an attempt to escape or elude in violation of General Statutes § 14-223 (b). With...