STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CHRISTOPHER BOLDEN, SC 21063

Judicial District of Waterbury

Tampering with Physical Evidence; General Statutes § 53a-155 (a); Whether Appellate Court Correctly Determined that Evidence Was Sufficient to Prove Defendant Concealed Motor Vehicle to Impair Its Availability in Criminal Investigation. The defendant, Christopher Bolden, drove his girlfriend's sport utility vehicle (SUV) to Baldwin Street in Waterbury around 8:40 p.m. on May 1, 2020. A witness saw the SUV approach an intersection and, without slowing down or breaking, strike the victim as she entered a crosswalk, which caused her to roll over the hood of the SUV and to land in the street. The defendant performed a U-turn, returned to the scene, and paused momentarily before leaving. The victim died from multiple blunt impact injuries. Meanwhile, six or seven miles away from the accident, the SUV began to smoke, and the defendant maneuvered it partially into a driveway containing seven other vehicles. He reported to the homeowner that he was having car trouble, and the homeowner called a cab. The cab driver, the homeowner, and the defendant pushed the SUV far enough into the driveway so that its front end, which was visibly damaged from the accident, was not in the street. The cab then took the defendant and his girlfriend to a hotel. The next morning, a patrol officer observed the SUV in the driveway and noted the damage. A crime scene technician was dispatched to the residence to collect evidence around the same time that the defendant and his girlfriend came to retrieve the SUV. Upon seeing the police, they left and reported the SUV as stolen. When the police interviewed the couple, the defendant confessed to striking the victim, to leaving the scene, and to parking the SUV at the residence. He was arrested and found guilty of, among other crimes, tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a), which prohibits someone who believes that a criminal investigation is pending or is about to be instituted from "conceal[ing] . . . any record, document or thing with [the] purpose to impair its verity or availability" in that investigation. On appeal to the Appellate Court (227 Conn. App. 636), the defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had believed that a criminal investigation was about to begin or that he had "conceal[ed]" the SUV. The court rejected both claims, first concluding that the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant believed that a criminal investigation was about to commence given that he saw the victim on the ground upon returning to the scene and, moreover, due to the "significant damage to the SUV." Even though the SUV was "in plain sight," the Appellate Court reasoned that there was sufficient evidence to prove concealment, as the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant "likely knew that he seriously injured a pedestrian" and "saw an opportunity to make the SUV less noticeable in a private driveway with a significant number of other vehicles." The Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 51-197f, limited to whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that there was sufficient evidence that he "concealed his motor vehicle for the purpose of impairing its availability in connection with a criminal investigation." The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he "believed that it was probable" that an investigation was pending, as nothing contradicted his statement to the police that he did not see anyone in the street following the accident. He also claims that there was insufficient evidence of concealment because the SUV and its damaged front end were in plain sight and faced the street. The state argues that the Appellate Court properly upheld the conviction based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence and, also, that the defendant's claim regarding his belief that an investigation was pending is beyond the certified issue, which pertains only to whether the SUV was concealed with the intent to impair its availability.