STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAMES MAHARG, SC 20855

Judicial District of Danbury

Criminal; Whether State's Indirect Reliance on Suppressed Statement to Police Rendered Defendant's Trial Fundamentally Unfair; Whether Trial Court Improperly Declined to Suppress Subsequent Statement Made Shortly After Initially, Improperly Procured Statement. In the early morning hours of March 20, 2019, the defendant called 911 and reported that he had found his husband, Thomas Conley, dead in their home. The defendant told the dispatcher that, after a night of heavy drinking by the couple, Conley had fallen into a kitchen cabinet and hit his head but that the defendant had treated the wound and that the couple had then gone upstairs to bed. According to the defendant, he subsequently woke up and found Conley dead downstairs. Arriving police and paramedics found Conley on the floor at the base of the stairs with several wounds on his head. Shortly thereafter, the defendant, who was heavily intoxicated, was transported to the state police barracks. At the barracks, he was interrogated by two detectives for nearly thirteen hours. Throughout the interrogation, the defendant exhibited obvious signs of alcohol withdrawal, including vomiting and shaking, and he repeatedly asked for alcohol, indicated that he needed medical attention, and stated that he wanted to leave. The detectives, however, insisted on proceeding with their questioning and noted that they needed information to provide to the medical examiner. After the defendant repeated what he had told the first responders, the detectives stated that blood had been found in a barn on the couple's property in the vicinity of a hatchet and suggested that the defendant had struck Conely with the hatchet while he was blackout drunk. Initially, the defendant denied hurting Conley and continued to do so for much of the interrogation. When the detectives later vowed to speak with all of the defendant's acquittances, however, the defendant stated that he had pushed Conley into the cabinet, but he denied hitting Conley. After the detectives persisted in suggesting that the defendant had struck Conley with the hatchet, the defendant stated, "it sounds like that's what I did." The interrogation finally ended when the defendant fell to the floor in a seizure and became unresponsive. He was thereafter transported to the hospital, where, after waking up a couple of hours later, he spontaneously stated that he had killed his husband. The defendant was subsequently charged with murder and tried before a three-judge panel. The trial court suppressed all of the statements made by the defendant while at the police barracks, concluding that his obvious need for medical care had been so apparent and critical that the interrogation violated his constitutional rights. The court declined, however, to suppress the defendant's statement at the hospital, and he was ultimately convicted. The defendant now appeals directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). He first claims that the trial was fundamentally unfair because, although his statements at the police barracks had been suppressed, the state indirectly relied on the statements to establish his guilt. In particular, the defendant notes that some of the details from the interrogation had been relayed to the medical examiner, which colored her assessment that Conley's injuries were indicative of "chop wounds" and that the manner of his death was a homicide. The defendant also claims that the trial court erroneously declined to suppress his hospital statement, arguing that this statement was merely a continuation of the custodial interrogation that had begun at the police barracks. Accordingly, the defendant seeks acquittal or, at minimum, a new trial.