State v. Chong Chung
1987 Conn. LEXIS 734, 519 A.2d 1175, 202 Conn. 39 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's subjective misunderstanding of their constitutional rights, such as believing oral statements cannot be used against them, does not invalidate a Miranda waiver if the police did not induce the misunderstanding and the waiver was otherwise voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.
Facts:
- On March 23, 1982, a restaurant owner in Westport was found murdered, having been shot twice with his throat cut.
- The restaurant's safe and cash register had been emptied, and the victim's wallet was missing.
- Police recovered some stolen items from a dumpster, which had fingerprints identified as belonging to Chong Chung.
- The day after the murder, Chung called the restaurant and the police station to inquire about the victim, admitting he had been at the restaurant around the time of the homicide.
- On June 18, 1982, Chung was apprehended in Toronto, Canada.
- Two Westport police officers flew to Toronto, informed Chung of his Miranda rights, and obtained his oral agreement and signed waiver to speak with them.
- During a tape-recorded interrogation, Chung first told a false story about four masked robbers, but then confessed that he and a companion named Jimmy had robbed the victim.
- Chung admitted to taking the victim's wallet and money but claimed that Jimmy was the one who actually killed the victim.
Procedural Posture:
- Chong Chung was indicted for felony murder in a Connecticut trial court.
- Chung filed a pretrial motion to suppress his confession, arguing his Miranda waiver was not knowing and intelligent.
- The trial court held a suppression hearing and subsequently denied the motion.
- Chung entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the court's denial of his suppression motion.
- The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Chung to thirty years imprisonment.
- Chung then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's subjective misunderstanding of his right against self-incrimination invalidate his Miranda waiver when the police did not induce that misunderstanding and the totality of the circumstances indicates the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent?
Opinions:
Majority - Healey, J.
No. A defendant's waiver of his right against self-incrimination is not invalidated by his subjective misconceptions about his rights, provided the police did not induce those misconceptions and the waiver was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The court found substantial evidence that Chung's waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court's reasoning was based on several factors: Chung was a 28-year-old adult with a high school equivalency education who had lived in the U.S. for 18 years; he had prior experience with the criminal justice system; he was read his rights paragraph by paragraph, stated he understood them, and signed a waiver form, which constitutes 'strong proof' of validity. Chung's claim that he believed oral statements could not be used against him was insufficient to invalidate the waiver, as the police did not foster this belief. Furthermore, the confession itself was voluntary, as police exhortations to tell the truth did not constitute coercion, especially since Chung repeatedly testified that the officers made no threats or promises to him.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' standard for evaluating the validity of a Miranda waiver. It clarifies that a defendant's internal, subjective misunderstanding of the law is insufficient to invalidate a confession unless the police engaged in conduct that created or exploited that misunderstanding. The decision provides a clear example of police persuasion tactics, such as encouraging a suspect to tell the truth, that fall short of unconstitutional coercion. It establishes a high bar for defendants seeking to suppress a confession based on a lack of understanding, particularly when a signed waiver and prior experience with the justice system are present.
