Standard of Review for Interrogation Finding
The Supreme Court settled the question of the standard to apply when presented with an issue of whether a Defendant already in custody has been subjected to interrogation and concluded that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the statements made to the police. But, Defendant's convictions for both possession of narcotics with intent to sell and possession of narcotics violated the guarantee against double jeopardy under the federal and state constitutions.
The Supreme Court ruled that whether a Defendant already in custody has been subjected to interrogation presents a mixed question of law and fact over which the court's review is plenary, tempered by a scrupulous examination of the record to ascertain whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. The state conceded that the Defendant was in custody and the Supreme Court concluded that the facts as found did not constitute interrogation.
The Defendant did not properly preserve the issue of whether his statements were the product of police coercion or the claim that the state failed to assert the privelege to keep the identity of the informant confidential.
Defendant's constitutional protections against double jeopardy were violated as the charge for possession of narcotics with intent to sell and possession of narcotics arose from the same act or transaction and it is not possible to commit possession with intent to sell without first committing the offense of possession. The matter was remanded with direction to merge the convictions and to vacate the sentence on the conviction of possession of narcotics.
State v. Mullins
Connecticut Supreme Court
AC 18097
