Opinion
CR170211543T
10-01-2019
STATE of Connecticut v. Adam PHILLIPS
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Suarez, J.
The defendant, Adam Phillips, was arrested on a warrant issued by the court, Gold, J., on March 28, 2017. The defendant is charged with sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(4). On September 10, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, seeking to quash any written and oral statements made by the defendant to the Clinton Police Department on August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016, and October 17, 2016. The defendant claims that any statements he made to the Clinton Police Department were not knowingly or voluntarily made, were made without the assistance of counsel, and were the product of an otherwise illegal detention and custody. Additionally, the defendant argues that the procurement of his statements were in violation of his rights.
The court heard evidence on the motion on January 28 and 29, 2019, March 15, 2019. May 10, 2019, and June 7, 2019. After careful consideration of the credible evidence case, the court finds the following facts.
The defendant is charged in two separate files. In docket number MMX-CR-17-0211543, the defendant is charged with an alleged sexual assault that occurred on or before July 2, 2016. In docket number MMX-CR-170211544, the defendant is charged with an alleged sexual assault that occurred on October 5, 2016, but with a different victim. The defendant has filed motions to suppress in both files. All pending motions to suppress were heard simultaneously by this court and some facts apply to both files. For purpose of clarity, the court will issue a separate memorandum of decision for each file.
FACTS
On July 6, 2016, the Clinton Police Department received a complaint from Yale New Haven Hospital that a patient, Patty, exhibited evidence consistent with a sexual assault and that she may not survive her injuries. Her injuries included a bruised abdomen, bruised labia, vaginal tears, a fractured hip, and fractured pelvis. The hospital personnel performed a "sexual assault kit" on Patty. The examination discovered a protein, P-30, inside Patty’s vagina. P-30 is a protein found in male semen. The sample recovered from Patty, however, was not large enough to determine the perpetrator’s DNA. Ultimately, Patti succumbed to her injuries on July 16, 2016. Patty was a resident at an intermediate care facility for disabled adults located in Clinton, Connecticut. She was sixty-two years old, nonverbal, and suffered from Down syndrome, and dementia.
In accordance with General Statutes § 54-86e, the court will identify the alleged victim by her first name.
A "sexual assault kit" is an examination performed on sexual assault victims to gather DNA and/or other evidence to assist law enforcement in identifying and capturing an assailant.
Sergeant Joseph Flynn of the Clinton Police Department interviewed the staff at the care facility and requested that all male employees submit to a DNA sample. On August 23, 2016, the defendant voluntarily drove himself to the Clinton Police Department and met with Sergeant Flynn, who escorted him to an interview room. Although the interview room door was closed for privacy purposes, it was not locked and the defendant sat closest to the door, while Sergeant Flynn sat across the table. At this point, Sergeant Flynn calmly explained to the defendant that he was conducting an investigation into what happened to Patty. He explained to the defendant that he was interviewing all employees at the facility and was asking all male employees to submit to DNA testing. The defendant indicated and acknowledged that he understood the purpose of the interview. Sergeant Flynn then began asking the defendant questions about his role at the facility and his interactions with Patty. The defendant responded to Sergeant Flynn’s questions in a clear, coherent, and calm manner. He described noticing bruising on Patty while he and a coworker were bathing her on July 1, 2016. After this discovery, the defendant reported his findings to the supervisors at the facility.
At one point during the August 23, 2016 interview, the defendant received a text message on his cell phone and asked Sergeant Flynn if he could make a phone call. The defendant left the interview room and Sergeant Flynn suggested that he should go outside the building to get a better cell reception. Sergeant Flynn remained in the interview room and the defendant returned approximately three minutes later. Upon his return, the defendant received a phone call and again exited the interview room. After completing his call, the defendant returned to the interview room and closed the door behind him.
Sergeant Flynn then continued with the interview, handwrote the defendant’s statement, and read it aloud while the defendant periodically corrected Sergeant Flynn’s transcription. Sergeant Flynn then instructed the defendant to read the written statement to himself and make any necessary corrections. At this point, Sergeant Flynn left the interview room. Approximately three minutes later, Sergeant Flynn returned to the interview room and asked the defendant if he had any changes, to which the defendant responded that he did not. Sergeant Flynn took the defendant’s oath and the defendant signed the written statement. The August 23, 2016 handwritten sworn statement is approximately one and one-half pages long.
Sergeant Flynn proceeded to explain to the defendant how to perform the DNA test. First, Sergeant Flynn presented the defendant with a Clinton Police Department consent to search form. Sergeant Flynn filled out the form indicating that the defendant was providing consent to search for his DNA and that said DNA would be submitted to the Connecticut Forensic Laboratory. The defendant voluntarily signed the consent form and Sergeant Flynn began to explain the DNA gathering process. In order to properly obtain his DNA, the defendant would need to press a swab onto the inside of his check and rub it back and forth. The defendant followed Sergeant Flynn’s instructions without hesitation. Once more, Sergeant Flynn asked the defendant if he needed to add any additional information to his signed statement; to which the defendant declined. In total, the August 23, 2016 interview lasted approximately one hour and seventeen minutes.
On October 6, 2016, the defendant again drove to the Clinton Police Department on his own accord and asked to meet with Sergeant Flynn. Upon entering an interview room at the Clinton Police Department, Sergeant Flynn asked the defendant what brought him to the station that day. The defendant reported to Sergeant Flynn that a friend went to his apartment earlier that morning and threatened him with physical harm for having sex with his girlfriend the previous night. At that point, the defendant asked Sergeant Flynn if anyone was looking for him. Sergeant Flynn reported that he was not aware of any complaints levied against the defendant and inquired further as to the specific reasons for his concerns. The defendant then explained to Sergeant Flynn that his friend’s girlfriend, Rebecca, contacted him on Facebook and was looking to hangout that evening. When the defendant picked up Rebecca, she appeared to have been drinking. Before taking Rebecca to his apartment, the defendant stopped at a liquor store to buy more alcohol, which they later consumed together at his apartment. Although the defendant originally denied having sex with Rebecca, he ultimately admitted that he engaged in what he described as a consensual sexual encounter.
In accordance with § 54-86e, the court will identify the alleged victim by her first name only.
During the interview, Sergeant Flynn periodically interrupted the defendant in order to clarify his responses, but did not actively question the defendant. Rather, the defendant, on his owm accord, explained to Sergeant Flynn his version of events from the previous night. Sergeant Flynn then asked the defendant for Rebecca and his friends’ telephone numbers. The defendant was unable to locate the telephone numbers on his cell phone as he believed he had erased them. Sergeant Flynn offered to have a technologically savvy police officer retrieve the phone numbers from the defendant’s phone, to which the defendant agreed. After this conversation, Officer Verone, of the Clinton Police Department, entered the interview room and provided the defendant with a form consenting to the search of his cell phone. While Officer Verone did not read the consent form to the defendant, he did explain to the defendant that he was going to search the cell phone for the missing telephone numbers. Acting on this information, the defendant voluntarily signed the consent form. After Officer Verone exited the room, Sergeant Flynn resumed his discussion of the prior night’s events with the defendant. Sergeant Flynn continued to handwrite the defendant’s statement while reading it aloud. Before leaving the interview room, Sergeant Flynn told the defendant to read his statement again, make any necessary corrections, and initial the changes. The defendant then read the statement to himself and made the necessary corrections. Approximately nine minutes later, Sergeant Flynn returned to the interview room and asked the defendant if he wanted to make any additional changes to his statement. When the defendant indicated that he did not, Sergeant Flynn took his oath and the defendant signed the statement. The October 6, 2016 statement is three pages long.
Officer Verone is trained in retrieving data from cell phones.
During the October 6, 2016 interview, the defendant told Sergeant Flynn that Rebecca left her sweatshirt in his car. The defendant also told Sergeant Flynn that he discarded the empty bottles of alcohol into a drainage system behind his apartment. Sergeant Flynn then asked the defendant to sign a consent form that would allow officers to search his car for Rebecca’s sweatshirt. The defendant voluntarily signed this consent form without issue. Sergeant Flynn also presented the defendant with a consent to search form, which would allow officers to search the defendant’s apartment for the empty bottles of alcohol consumed the prior evening. Again, the defendant voluntarily signed this document.
Immediately after the defendant signed his sworn statement and both consent forms, Sergeant Flynn confronted the defendant with the false accusation that the defendant’s DNA provided on August 23, 2016, was a positive match to the sample taken in Patty’s case. The defendant was in disbelief and again explained the sequence of events as previously provided on August 3, 2016. Approximately eighteen minutes after confronting the defendant with this false accusation, Sergeant Flynn left the interview room and was replaced by Detective Pellegrini, who entered the room and closed the door. Detective Pellegrini reengaged the defendant’s questioning and attempted to gain his trust by indicating that he was there to help and that the defendant would feel better if he confessed. Detective Pellegrini also told the defendant that he would talk to the judge in the defendant’s favor if he confessed. During this process, Detective Pellegrini was attempting to elicit an explanation as to how the defendant’s DNA was found inside Patty. This questioning continued for approximately thirty minutes, all while Detective Pellegrini attempted to use the false information to garner the defendant’s confession. The defendant stated that he could have had sperm on his hands after he masturbated in the bathroom, which was then transferred to Patty when he bathed her without wearing gloves. He also confessed that he may have inserted one of his fingers up to the first knuckle into Patty’s vagina while washing her. The defendant, however, never confessed to engaging in any penile vaginal intercourse with Patty. Detective Pellegrini eventually left the interview room, ending the October 6, 2016 interview, which took place between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.
On October 17, 2016, the defendant returned to the Clinton Police Department. This time, however, the defendant was required to turn over his DNA pursuant to a search warrant issued by the court. Sergeant Flynn explained to the defendant the process for collecting DNA with a buccal swab. Following Sergeant Flynn’s instructions, the defendant again voluntarily acquiesced to the officer’s request. Sergeant Flynn also explained to the defendant that his mother called the Clinton Police Department asking for information about the case. Sergeant Flynn asked the defendant for permission to speak with his mother, to which the defendant consented. At that time, Sergeant Flynn started to ask the defendant for more details about the incident with Rebecca. The defendant responded with a consistent account of what happened with Rebecca on the night in question. Eight minutes into Sergeant Flynn’s interrogation, the defendant refused to answer any more questions without his attorney or mother present. Sergeant Flynn then asked the defendant how his DNA was found inside Patty. Sergeant Flynn again confronted the defendant with the false information that the defendant’s semen was found inside her, to which the defendant maintained that he would never force himself upon anyone. The defendant told Sergeant Flynn that he had already explained what happened with Patty and that he was not going to say anything further without an attorney or his mother present. In total, the October 17, 2016 interview lasted eleven minutes.
Sergeant Flynn and Detective Pellegrini never displayed any weapons or restraints, nor did they use, or threaten to use, any force against the defendant during the August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016, or October 17, 2016 interviews. Instead, Sergeant Flynn and Detective Pellegrini spoke in a conversational tone and never raised their voices or spoke in an aggressive manner. The defendant was fully cooperative and did not seem to be intimidated by Sergeant Flynn in any way. Based on his responses to Sergeant Flynn and Detective Pellegrini, the defendant was clearly alert and did not appear to have any cognitive or mental disability. Additionally, he did not appear to be tired or under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. Furthermore, the defendant did not indicate that he had any difficulty understanding Sergeant Flynn’s or Detective Pellegrini’s questions.
The defendant did, however, state that he felt Detective Pellegrini was attempting to pressure him to falsely confess. Detective Pellegrini did attempt to gain the defendant’s trust, while confronting the defendant with the false information about his DNA, all in an attempt to have the defendant confess that he sexually assaulted Patty. Detective Pellegrini did not, however, overbear the defendant’s free will or otherwise invalidly obtain his confession to such an offense.
The defendant was twenty-four years old at the time of the August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016, and October 17, 2016 interviews. He is originally from Brazil, but English is his native language, as he was adopted as an infant and grew up in New Brunswick, New Jersey. At an early age, his adoptive parents noticed that he exhibited some signs of developmental delays. Due to these signs, his parents had him professionally evaluated, which determined that the defendant was functioning below the average levels for children his age. As a result, when he was three years old, the defendant was enrolled in a private school for children with delayed language skills. The private school ultimately recommended that the defendant postpone entering kindergarten for an additional year. When he was six, the defendant began attending local public schools, however, he was placed in a self-contained special unit with only six to eight students per class. By the fifth grade, the defendant began falling behind. The defendant was diagnosed with multiple disabilities, including specific learning disabilities, communication impairment, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
At this point, his parents became assertive advocates for their son’s educational needs. From the sixth grade through the eleventh grade, the defendant attended the New Range School in Hamilton, New Jersey, an out of district school for children with learning disabilities. At the New Range School, he participated in tutoring and specialized reading classes. Additionally, his parents also provided private tutoring lessons for speech and language development.
The defendant’s academic progress was evaluated annually through an individualized educational program (IEP) facilitated by the Highland Park Public School system. The defendant, however, exhibited only minimal educational progress. As a result, experts working on the defendant’s IEP recommended that the best educational plan would be to enroll him in a vocational program that would focus on teaching fundamental life skills for independent living. The vocational education program, however, was equally unsuccessful.
In April 2011, his parents retained Dana Henning, an educational consultant who was hired to perform an evaluation on the defendant. Henning determined that the defendant needed an IEP more focused on a transitional plan that emphasized life skills and on-the-job training. The educational consultant identified Vista as the proper placement program for the defendant. Vista is a specialized hands-on educational program for individuals with disabilities located in Westbrook, Connecticut. The defendant enrolled in the Vista program in the fall of 2011, when he was nineteen years old. The Vista educational program was paid for by the Highland Park Public School System. Ultimately, the defendant remained in the Vista program for eighteen months. Finally, in spring, 2013, the defendant graduated from high school and received a degree from the Highland Park Public Schools. The defendant currently lives independently, drives his own car, and is a certified nurse’s assistant (CNA). He now works as a manager of a fast food restaurant.
At the motion hearing, the defendant offered the credible testimony of a licensed clinical therapist, Madden Visintainier Baranoski, PhD. Dr. Baranoski teaches forensic psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine in the Department of Psychiatry Law and in the Psychiatry Division. Additionally, Dr. Baranoski also sees individual patients. In furtherance of these motions, Dr. Baranoski was asked to perform an evaluation on the defendant in order to provide her opinion of the defendant’s cognitive abilities. She reviewed the defendant’s educational records and performed tests to assess the defendant’s cognitive and reading levels. Dr. Baranoski performed the Wechsler I.Q. test, whereby the defendant scored in the low to average range for verbal reasoning and average for perceptional reasoning. Those results were consistent with his educational records leading Dr. Baranoski to determine that the defendant possessed average intelligence. Dr. Baranoski also performed the Woodcock Johnson test, which tests reading comprehension abilities. After scoring in the second percentile, Dr. Baranoski determined that the defendant suffered from significant reading comprehension deficits. Finally, Dr. Baranoski concluded that the defendant is of average intelligence, but is encumbered by significant learning disabilities. The defendant is able to understand normal conversations and is able to respond intelligently, but has difficulty gathering and understanding information. Although the defendant is able to understand verbal communication, he struggles to comprehend written language.
DISCUSSION
The defendant asserts that his statements to the Clinton Police Department on August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016, and October 17, 2016, were involuntary. At closing arguments, the defendant conceded that he was not in custody at the time his statements were made to the interviewing officers. Therefore, the court need only address whether his statements were voluntarily given.
"[T]he use of an involuntary confession in a criminal trial is a violation of due process ... State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266, 321, 96 A.3d 1199 (2014). "[T]he test of voluntariness is whether an examination of all the circumstances discloses that the conduct of law enforcement officials was such as to overbear [the defendant’s] will to resist and bring about confessions not freely self-determined ... The ultimate test remains ... [i]s the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process ... The determination, by the trial court, whether a confession is voluntary must be grounded [in] a consideration of the circumstances surrounding it ..." Id.
The court may consider several factors in order to determine whether a defendant’s statements were voluntary, including: "the youth of the accused; his lack of education; his intelligence; the lack of any advice as to his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and the use of physical punishment, such as the deprivation of food and sleep ... Under the federal constitution, however, coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary ..." State v. Andrews, supra, 313 Conn. 321-22. In examining an inquiry into the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement, the court must look at the conduct employed by law enforcement officials that imposed pressures on the defendant, as well as his capacity to resist such pressure. See State v. Lapointe, 237 Conn. 694, 731, 678 A.2d 942, cert denied, Lapointe v. Connecticut, 519 U.S. 994, 117 S.Ct. 484, 136 L.Ed.2d 378 (1996).
"Courts invariably have concluded that interrogation methods involving trickery and deception are permissible unless the technique is so extreme or inappropriate as to render the confession involuntary." State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537, 609 n.17, 4 A.3d 1176 (2010). "[S]tatements by the police designed to lead a suspect to believe that the case against him is strong are common investigative techniques and would rarely, if ever, be sufficient to overbear the defendant’s will and to bring about a confession to a serious crime that is not freely self-determined ..." State v. Doyle, 104 Conn.App. 4, 17, 931 A.2d 393, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 935, 935 A.2d 152 (2007), quoting State v. Lapointe, supra, 237 Conn. 732; see Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739-40, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed. 684 (1969). "Encouraging a suspect to tell the truth ... does not, as a matter of law, overcome a confessor’s will ..." State v. Wright, 76 Conn.App. 91, 110, 818 A.2d 824 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 911, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). Likewise, "[a] statement [that the accused’s cooperation would be to his benefit] by a law enforcement officer falls far short of creating the compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely." (Emphasis in original.) Id. "[W]hile mental condition is surely relevant to an individual’s susceptibility to police coercion, mere examination of the confessant’s state of mind can never conclude the due process inquiry." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lapointe, supra, 237 Conn. 729, citing, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 165, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). The mere existence of the defendant’s learning disability does not, in and of itself, make his statements involuntary. Our appellate courts have held on multiple occasions that: "the fact that the defendant was somewhat deficient in mental ability, had a psychiatric disorder, and was upset emotionally [does not] render his statements inadmissible." State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385, 425, 736 A.2d 857 (1999); accord State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70, 84-85, 475 A.2d 1089 (1984); see also State v. Lapointe, supra, 237 Conn. 730; State v. Wright, supra, 76 Conn.App. 110.
The defendant argues that he was susceptible to coercive police tactics due to his learning disability. Although the court does not question the sincerity of the defendant’s learning disability, the court cannot find any supporting evidence in the record which tends to show that the defendant’s learning disability prevented him from understanding or comprehending police questioning. The defendant has completed his high school education, obtained his CNA license, and has been gainfully employed as a CNA and as a manager of a fast food restaurant. The defendant’s expert, Dr. Baranoski, testified that he possesses normal intelligence, but has low to average verbal reasoning skills. Dr. Baranoski also found that the defendant is able to understand conversational language and can respond intelligently to such communication. Instead, the defendant suffers from an extreme disability to comprehend and understand written language, but does not suffer from any additional intellectual deficiencies.
A review of the defendant’s interactions with the police during the questioning sessions show that he is able to engage in appropriate and rational conversation with others. During the interviews at the Clinton Police Department, the defendant answered questions directly, coherently, and free of duress. At no point during any interview session did the defendant express that he did not understand the officers’ line of questioning, or that he needed any special accommodation or assistance to further his understanding of the questions.
Moreover, on August 23, 2016, Sergeant Flynn read the defendant’s statement aloud as he transcribed it. While Sergeant Flynn took down the defendant’s statement, the defendant was given ample opportunity to correct any discrepancies or misstatements. After making some corrections to the document, Sergeant Flynn orally read the August 23, 2016 statement to the defendant. The defendant was again given the opportunity to review the document on his own and make any additional alterations. After reading the document, the defendant made some supplemental changes to the handwritten statement.
Lastly, the defendant voluntarily came to the Clinton Police Department to report a threat made against him on the morning of October 6, 2016. During this interview, the defendant gave an oral statement to the Clinton Police Department as to how his DNA could have possibly been found inside Patty, but did not provide a written statement. In spite of the efforts made by Detective Pellegrini to persuade the defendant to confess to causing Patty’s injuries, the defendant’s will was not overborne and he refused to confess. In total, the October 6, 2016 interview lasted for only three hours.
During the October 17, 2016 interview, Sergeant Flynn attempted to elicit additional information from the defendant as to his interaction with Patty. The defendant, however, maintained firm in his position that he would not answer anymore of Sergeant Flynn’s questions until he was in the presence of his attorney. The October 17, 2016 interview lasted for only eleven minutes.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that the defendant’s statements made to the Clinton Police Department on August 23, 2016, October 6, 2016, and October 17, 2016, were voluntarily executed. As a result, the defendant’s motion to suppress is hereby: DENIED.