Opinion
N23NCR160169881S
10-19-2018
STATE of Connecticut v. Suzanne THOMPSON
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Hon. Melanie L. Cradle, Superior Court Judge
This matter comes before the court on Suzanne Thompson’s, a defendant in a case recently dismissed, motion requesting the return of a firearm seized in evidence. The weapon was seized at the time Mrs. Thompson was arrested and charged with the crimes of: Disorderly Conduct, Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree and Unlawful Discharge. Mrs. Thompson claims that the seized firearm belongs to her and is registered in her name. She is asking that the firearm be returned to her, or alternatively, her husband.
The court finds the following facts based upon information that is part of the record and/or submitted to the court at the hearing on the motion. The firearm in question, a Jennings Arms Model 48 .380 caliber handgun, was seized as a result of an incident that occurred at Mrs. Thompson’s home. On August 11, 2016, the North Branford Police Department responded to a call placed by Mrs. Thompson indicating that she had attempted to take her life and discharged a firearm within her home. When they arrived at her house she was waiting outside and crying hysterically. During the course of the investigation the police learned that Mrs. Thompson discharged her firearm in her home while her husband was present. They also learned that Mrs. Thompson’s husband tried to prevent her from hurting herself. Her son was also in the home at the time of the incident. Her husband indicated to the police that she had been drinking alcohol and may have also taken medication (Xanax). Mrs. Thompson allegedly discharged the Jennings Arms handgun in her bedroom and the bullet hit a wall. In addition to the Jennings Arms handgun, which was seized as evidence, the police, for safety reasons, seized other firearms located in the residence. According to the police report, a check of state licensing records revealed that the Jennings Arms handgun was registered to Mrs. Thompson. The police arrested the defendant on site and charged her with the following crimes: Disorderly Conduct, Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree and Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm.
In response to the charges, Mrs. Thompson made an application for accelerated rehabilitation. The state did not take a position on the application and left it to the court’s discretion. At the time the application was heard, Mrs. Thompson was attending weekly therapy sessions and was in compliance with the court-ordered conditions of her release. There was no agreement as to the disposition of seized property, which included the Jennings Arms handgun and other firearms seized from the home. On March 22, 2017, Mrs. Thompson appeared with her attorney and the accelerated rehabilitation program was granted. On March 21, 2018 the defendant was not in court and the state represented to the court that the probation report indicated that the accelerated rehabilitation had not been satisfactorily completed. The matter was continued with notice to the defendant and her attorney. On June 6, 2018, the defendant successfully completed the requirements of the program and the charges were dismissed.
On July 18th, 2018, the defendant filed a written motion, dated July 9, 2018, requesting that the Jennings Arms Model 48 handgun seized at the time of her arrest be returned to her husband, who possesses a valid pistol permit. In her motion, the defendant indicated that the Jennings Arms Model 48 handgun is registered to her. She claimed that the firearm had belonged to her father in law and was given to her after his death. On August 22, 2018, the Court heard from Mrs. Thompson who again, requested the return of the Jennings Arms handgun to her husband. The state objected to the return of the firearm because it was used in the commission of a crime, and the crime was committed in her home. More specifically, they requested that the firearm be returned to the state police. The court indicated that it would review the record of the prior proceeding and re-schedule the matter for further hearing and resolution of the motion. Mrs. Thompson advised the court that she did not wish to return or to be heard further on her motion. The court informed Mrs. Thompson that she would be notified of the court’s decision.
On September 20, 2018 the court instructed the caseflow coordinator Attorney Joe Murolo to again inquire as to whether Mrs. Thompson wished to be heard further or make any additional argument to the court. Mrs. Thompson was contacted and declined.
The court finds that the request by Mrs. Thompson to return the firearm is filed in accordance with Section 54-36a(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. When a party seeks the return of seized property, an in rem forfeiture proceeding is not required if the property was seized incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Perez, 173 Conn.App. 40, 51 (2017). When seized property is adjudicated a nuisance, the court is not required to order the property returned to its rightful owner. Connecticut General Statutes Section 54-33g. A nuisance is "property that has been possessed, controlled or designed for use, or is or has been or is intended to be used, with the intent to violate or in violation of any criminal laws of this state ..." Connecticut General Statutes Section 54-33(g). If the court adjudges the seized property a nuisance, the court may order the property destroyed.
Mrs. Thompson seeks the return of a firearm that was used in the commission of the offenses, unlawful discharge of a weapon and reckless endangerment in the second degree. The firearm was seized incident to the lawful arrest of Mrs. Thompson for those offenses. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, this court finds, by clearing and convincing evidence, that the firearm seized by the North Branford Police Department is a nuisance in that it was used in the course of the commission of an offense. Specifically, Mrs. Thompson was charged with criminal offenses resulting from her unlawful discharge of the Jennings Arms handgun that she now wishes to be returned to her. In accordance with Section 54-36(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes, "firearms and ammunition adjudged by the court to be contraband ... Or. adjudged to be a nuisance pursuant to 54-33g shall be turned over to the Bureau of Identification of the Connecticut Division of the State Police ... for destruction or appropriate use or disposal by sale at public auction." For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders that the Jennings Arms handgun be turned over to the Bureau of Identification of the Connecticut Division of the State Police within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for destruction, and the defendant’s motion is denied.
So Ordered.