State of Maine v. Brown

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Brown

Superior Court of Maine·Decided December 4, 2014·No. KENcr-14-501·Unpublished

Opinion

EN I ERED DEC 1 1 2014

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS. CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-14-501 DHM- KE:N-1~-o~-ILt STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER

JASON K. BROWN,

Defendant

Before the court is Defendant's motion for written findings of fact and

conclusions of law pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 41A(d). The court made findings of

fact on the record in open court. In granting the motion, the court provides these

conclusions.

On August 24, 2013, the Defendant had been found in a ditch in obvious

chemieal or alcohol distress and was taken to the Maine General Medical Center.

Sometime earlier that day there had been a structure fire. The police officer went

to see the Defendant in the hospital on August 27, three days later.

The stated purpose of the visit was to check on the welfare of the defendant

given his condition when found in the ditch. The officer went to the ICU and spoke

with the nurse who gave him permission to talk to the patient. The nurse

accompanied the officer into the room where the Defendant was sleeping. The

nurse woke the Defendant and left the room. The officer asked the Defendant if he was OK and if he would talk to him. The Defendant responded that he was OK.

That started a conversational interchange eighteen minutes in length which was

recorded on a DVD. The court listened to the DVD in its entirety.

The officer was in casual clothing, not in uniform; he had a firearm, not

displayed, a badge, and a cell phone. He did not have handcuffs, which he made

know to the defendant. The Defendant asked the officer why he was there. The

officer indicated that it was a welfare check and he wanted to talk about "Saturday

night." After again inquiring about the condition of the Defendant, the officer told

him he was not under arrest. The Defendant agreed to talk to the officer.

The Defendant was very cooperative. He was not in distress. Once the

officer determined the patient was feeling OK, the officer said, "No matter what,

I'm leaving," meaning there would be no arrest. The officer then indicated to Mr.

Brown that he thought that Mr. Brown knew what he was going to be talking about

and he asked about "early Saturday morning." The Defendant said he was sleeping

in the eemetery having consumed 20 150 mg. welbutren pills and beer. He was

angry because someone had been causing him trouble and spreading rumors,

identifying "Pinky", aka James McKenna. The officer advised the Defendant to be

honest with him and the Defendant indicated that he was "pretty mad" and "pretty

well gone." He said he "got all f---ed up" and "lit the fire." The officer asked if he

used a lighter, if he was angry and what were the circumstances. The Defendant

2 indicated that he did not remember. He was asked if used gas, the Defendant

answered "no.'' The Defendant advised that he had been drinking with another

individual and while in the cemetery was taking pills and drinking beer. Defendant

indicated his last memory was at the cemetery. The officer then made the

statement, "You started the fire, agreed?" The officer then said, "You know as

well as I do that you started the fire." Mr. Brown did not respond to either

comment.

The officer indicated he was going to leave and he asked the Defendant for

his cell number and where he would be after leaving the hospital. The officer gave

the Defendant his card and suggested he should be honest about the circumstances.

The officer then stated, "Give me a call, we can work it out. Get yourself some

help." He added, "Hope you get better soon." The officer testified on cross-

examination that the Defendant did, in fact, call him later.

The defendant first argues that the solicitous attitude by the officer was

improper and made reference to the "Reed Technique" although he did not provide

any dte for such a reference.

It is defendant's assertion that he was, in fact, in custody by virtue of his

presence in the ICU of the hospital. The Defendant made reference to previous

decisions regarding interviews of Defendants in a hospital setting. He argued there

was not a familiarity by the Defendant of his location, he had just been waken from

3 sleep by the nurse and he was "incapacitated." The officer explained the nature of

the interview and the assurance he received from the nurse that Brown was not

under an influence or in distress.

The mere fact that a suspect cannot leave the hospital as a result of injury or

illness does not place that person in law enforcement custody for purposes of

Miranda. State v. Grant, 2008 ME 14, 939 A.2d 93. However, in Grant, the

defendant was interrogated at the hospital following surgery for injuries sustained

at the scene of a truck accident, was forcibly restrained, handcuffed and in the

presence of multiple officers.

A statement to a law enforcement officer may be voluntarily made even if

the Defendant is injured, medicated, or in distress. State v. Lowe, 2013 ME 92, 81

A.3d 360. However, in that instance, the officer was aggressive and insistent, had

excluded the 18 year old defendant's mother from the hospital room and told the

defendant his friends had died in the accident.

The conditions in the instant case are dissimilar. While the Defendant was in

a hospital setting unfamiliar to him, engaged in a contact initiated by a police

officer and certainly was the focus of an investigation, there was no degree of

restraint placed upon him by the officer. Where the defendant was somewhat

immobilized by medical treatment, rather than police action, he agreed to be

interviewed. See Lowe, at 17. The duration and character of the interrogation was

4 entirely business-like. A single law enforcement officer was present who made it

clear that he was not making an arrest and had no handcuffs.

' There was nothing under any of the circumstances presented to suggest that

the Defendant believed he was in custody. Furthermore, the nature of the interplay

between the officer and the Defendant made it obvious that his statements to the

officer were completely voluntary. Even though the Defendant was injured and

medicated, his statements were, beyond a reasonable doubt, made in the exercise of

his own free will and rational intellect. Lowe, 2013 ME 92, 81 A.3d 360. The

attending nurse in the ICU gave permission to the officer to speak to the

Defendant, and, indeed, woke him from a sleeping condition for that purpose.

It is the court's conclusion that there is no evidence that the Defendant was

in custody and is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that his statements

were voluntary.

The entry will be:

Defendant's motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law

is GRANTED, the defendants' motion to suppress is DENIED.

DATED: t ?r-- '1- I 't

Donald H. Marden Superior Court Justice

5 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. JASON K BROWN Docket No AUGSC-CR-2014-00501 1 ~LELLAN STREET

S"' _.• HEGAN ME 04 976 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 07/12/1984 Attorney: THOMAS CAREY State's Attorney: MAEGHAN MALONEY THOMAS J CAREY ESQ PO BOX 125 VIENNA ME 04360-0125 WITHDRAWN 07/10/2014 Attorney: ADAM SHERMAN PARADIE SHERMAN WALKER & WORDEN 11 LISBON ST SUITE 202 LEWISTON ME 04240 APPOINTED 07/10/2014

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI