State v. Garrison (Dissent) ( 2024 )

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0
2 ,0 0 Conn. 0State v. Garrison
McDONALD, J., with whom ECKER, J., joins, dis-
senting. This court today sets the troubling precedent
that an intoxicated person admitted to a hospital for
medical treatment, attached to an intravenous catheter
(also called a IV), and informed that he should not leave
until he has reached the point of medical sobriety, and
subjected to a cumulative hour of questioning over a
period of approximately four hours by five separate
police officers, many of whom were in uniform or visi-
bly carrying weapons, is nevertheless not in custody
for purposes of Miranda.1
In this certified appeal, this court must consider
whether the defendant, Alexander A. Garrison, was in
custody when he spoke with police officers during his
admission to, and treatment in, the hospital. See State
v. Garrison, 345 Conn. 959, 285 A.3d 52 (2022). Further,
if he was in custody, we must consider whether the
trial court’s admission of the statements the defendant
made during that interaction with the police was harm-
less beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. The Appellate
Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded
the case for a new trial after determining that the defen-
dant was in custody when he spoke with the police.
See State v. Garrison, 213 Conn. App. 786, 790, 841,
278 A.3d 1085 (2022). The Appellate Court also deter-
mined that the improper admission of these statements
was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.,
790, 832, 840–41. I agree with the reasoning of the Appel-
late Court and would affirm its judgment.
The opinion of the Appellate Court thoroughly and
accurately sets forth the facts and evidence considered
by the trial court. The state contends that the Appellate
Court’s judgment should be reversed because a ‘‘reason-
able person in the defendant’s position would not believe
that he was in police custody,’’ specifying, among other
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1
0 Conn. 0 ,0 3
State v. Garrison
factors, that the defendant voluntarily sought admission
at the hospital, he was never restrained or any restraint
was ‘‘minor,’’ and, although the defendant spoke with
a total of five police officers, the majority of the time,
he spoke with only a single officer. The state also argues
that the Appellate Court erred in finding that the admis-
sion of the statements was not harmless beyond a rea-
sonable doubt because ‘‘the state’s case was very strong
and supported by overwhelming evidence . . . .’’ The
defendant contends that the Appellate Court correctly
determined that he was in custody when he spoke with
police officers after admitting himself to the hospital
and that the state has failed to demonstrate that the
improper admission of the defendant’s statements was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
My examination of the record and briefs, and consid-
eration of the parties’ arguments, persuades me that this
court should affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment.
Because the Appellate Court’s well reasoned opinion
fully addresses both of the certified issues in this appeal,
it would serve no useful purpose for me to repeat the
discussion contained in that opinion. I therefore adopt
the Appellate Court’s opinion as the proper statement
of the issues and the applicable law and reasoning con-
cerning both issues. See, e.g., State v. Henderson, 330
Conn. 793, 799, 201 A.3d 389 (2019).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.