SC20371 - State v. Brandon (“The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction,
following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a (a). The defendant claims that the
trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress the statements he made during
two separately recorded interrogations of him by police officers. As to the
first interrogation, which occurred on February 16, 2016, sometime between 11
a.m. and noon, at the Bridgeport Office of Adult Probation, the defendant
contends that, because the police failed to advise him of his rights pursuant
to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed.
2d 694 (1966), the interrogation violated his rights under the fifth and
fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. As to the second
interrogation, which occurred later on the same day, at approximately 6 p.m.,
at the Bridgeport Police Department, the defendant claims that, notwithstanding
the fact that the officers had issued Miranda warnings at the outset of
that interrogation, it was tainted by the alleged illegality of the first
interrogation. We disagree. After review, we have determined that the first
interrogation was not custodial, and, therefore, that Miranda warnings
were not required. Consequently, the failure to provide them did not violate
the defendant’s rights and did not taint the second interrogation. Accordingly,
we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to
suppress the statements he made during the two interrogations and, therefore,
affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)