State of Connecticut v. David Christensen (2013)

RULING RE CONDITIONAL PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE

In the captioned case the defendant, David Christensen, is charged with possession of child pornography in violation of General Statutes § 53a–196.   The case arises out of a search warrant executed at 412 Putnam Street, Bridgeport on January 22, 2013.   At the time of the search, the police seized a computer allegedly containing images of suspected child pornography.   In connection with the execution of the warrant, the police interviewed the defendant.   The defendant allegedly made a number of incriminating oral admissions and signed a written statement later that same day.

The defendant moved to suppress all of his statements to the police—both oral and written.   After an evidentiary hearing, the court (Blawie, J.) denied the motion in a written memorandum of decision filed November 1, 2013.

The defendant now seeks to enter a conditional plea of nolo contendere preserving his right to appeal Judge Blawie's denial of his motion to suppress.   A hearing on whether such a plea should be permitted was conducted on December 16, 2013.   For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's request to enter a conditional plea of nolo contendere is denied.

General Statutes § 54–94a allows a defendant to enter a plea of nolo contendere conditional on the right to take an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress or dismiss “provided a trial court has determined that a ruling on such motion to suppress or motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case.” § 54–94a (emphasis added).   In the present case, the parties disagree as to whether this condition precedent has been met.

The defendant asserts that (1) the defendant worked repairing computers and there were several customer computers in his home, and (2) the internet protocol (IP) address for the seized computer is different from the IP address referred to in the search warrant application as the one receiving child pornography.   The defendant further asserts that, absent his incriminating statements, these factors raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.   The state asserts that the presence of the computer in the defendant's home coupled with the fact that the police observed child pornography being actively downloaded during the execution of the search warrant along with the fact that his IP address had received child pornography establish the defendant's possession of the relevant computer.   The state further asserts that even without the defendant's statements there is sufficient evidence to prove him guilty.

The issue before this court is whether the motion to suppress statements ruled upon by Judge Blawie is a dispositive motion.   The word “dispositive” is not defined in § 54–94a.   In addition, the word has not been defined in the cases that have construed § 54–94a since 2001 when the statute was amended to require the trial court to make such a finding before accepting a conditional nolo plea.   See State v. Munoz, 104 Conn.App. 85, 92 n.8 (2007).   What is clear, however, is that the required determination is a “matter of substance necessary to achieve the goals of the statute.”  State v. McGinnis, 83 Conn.App. 700, 705 (2004).   The requirement therefore is mandatory.  Id.

Giving the words their ordinary meaning, a ruling on a motion would be “dispositive of the case” if such a ruling would conclude the case definitely.   For example, the granting of a motion to dismiss would be dispositive of the case.   Likewise, the suppression of evidence necessary for proof of an essential element of the crimes charged would be dispositive because it would make it impossible for the state to meet its burden of proof.   On the other hand, a ruling on a motion to suppress that merely weakens the state's case or that leaves the case in a posture where facts are contested cannot be regarded a dispositive.

In the present case, Judge Blawie's ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress his statements was not dispositive of the case.   The prosecution would have continued had the court granted the motion.   Accordingly, the defendant's request to enter a conditional plea of nolo contendere under § 54–94a must be denied.

So Ordered at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 17th day of December 2013.

ROBERT J. DEVLIN, JR., JUDGE

Devlin, Robert J., J.