State of Maine v. Johnson

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Johnson

Superior Court of Maine·Decided November 14, 2003·No. KENcr-02-361·Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT

CRIMINAL ACTION

KENNEBEC;, ss. DOCKET NO. @cR0 361 _ Due BLA WV! 412008 8 mM ae |

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON MOTION

TO SUPPRESS

DENNY D. JOHNSON, DONALD LC.

Defendant LAWL

DEC 12 2003 This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to suppress statements

made by the defendant immediately and shortly after a motor vehicle collision resulting in the death of an other, for which defendant is now charged as criminally responsible. On July 17, 2002, at approximately 11:30 p.m., two residents of Randolph heard the sound of an automobile being driven at a very high rate of speed toward Pittston/Chelsea. A few minutes later, they heard an automobile making the same sound traveling in the opposite direction. Shortly thereafter, both the residents heard’a loud crash preceded by a squeal and succeeded by a car horn “going off.” Both residents called 9-1-1. The first person on the scene was a paramedic/ firefighter of the Gardiner Fire Department operating Rescue Unit #1, He found the defendant laying on the ground and a motor vehicle up against a tree with a deceased person “hanging out of it.” He approached the defendant and noticed a large laceration on his back as the defendant laid crouching in a crawling position. The defendant was very agitated and immediately stated to the paramedic that he wanted “to go home.” The paramedic advised the defendant that he was a paramedic and that defendant needed to lay down and stay calm. At this point, the defendant calmed down, laid on his back and followed the paramedic’s commands. The paramedic then assisted in placing the defendant in a

backboard and restraining collar and seeing that defendant was placed in the ambulance. During this time, the paramedic was looking for other injuries and, in order to assist him in the evaluation of potential injuries as well as to assess the mental state of the defendant, asked a series of questions. In response to being asked as to whether he was driving, the defendant gave an affirmative response. The paramedic asked the defendant his name and he answered, “Denny.” The defendant asked the paramedic

whether he would live and the paramedic answered that he did not know but that his

injuries were very severe.

The paramedic then testified as to the protocol for assistance of a seriously injured person as the ABCD analysis, wherein his first responsibility was to examine the airway, then the breathing, the circulation and finally any deficits in the physical condition of the patient. The deficient portion of the analysis includes a mental status assessment. This is a determination by the paramedic of the mental acuity of a trauma patient. It assists the paramedic in determining the nature of the injuries of the patient including any closed head injuries, an analysis of the accuracy of the patient in alerting the paramedic to pain and then assistance to the rescue personnel in finding and giving emergency treatments to injuries which may, or may not, be apparent.

There are four parts to the assessment including the ability of the patients to give their name, to describe their location, to be aware of the time and to describe any events leading to the injuries. In the present situation, upon being asked by the paramedic whether his name was Dennis Johnson or Denny, the defendant answered “Denny.” Upon being asked his location, the defendant responded that he was in Randolph and he gave a time generally consistent with the actual time. When asked to describe the events, the defendant was aware that he had been in an automobile accident and when asked in conjunction with these events who was driving responded, “I was.” In

furtherance of the assessment and to assist in diagnosis and treatment the defendant was asked whether he had been drinking. This was specifically asked by the paramedic because he smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage. The defendant responded he had consumed two drinks. Further, with regards to the events of the evening, the defendant advised the paramedic that he had been “coming from a party in Farmingdale.” When asked how fast he was driving, the defendant responded, 50 m.p.h. The defendant also indicated that his chest was hurting.

The paramedic determined that the defendant needed to go to the trauma center at the Lewiston hospital. During the trip toward the hospital, the paramedic became aware of a possibility of a “tension pneumothorax.” This is a presence of air in the space in the chest cavity outside of the lungs which, if left untreated, can cause the

lungs to put pressure on the heart. The paramedic determined that a chest decompression was necessary to prevent that serious condition. The ambulance was stopped and the paramedic inserted a large needle into the chest cavity of the defendant in order to conduct a “chest decompression.” As he was doing so and talking with the defendant, Mr. Johnson said, “You're stabbing me in the heart.” The paramedic testified this sensation was consistent with the actual procedure being performed.

As they were traveling in the ambulance toward the Lewiston hospital, the paramedic, having been joined by another rescue person, continued to attempt to communicate with the defendant in order to be aware of his mental condition, most notably to determine whether the patient was to change his level of consciousness, and in addition, to determine any developments with respect to the patient’s condition by new or aggravated pain. Included in the conversation was further discussion with respect to the driver of the automobile. On each occasion, the defendant answered that he had been the driver. Upon arrival at the emergency room in Lewiston, the doctor on

duty, in making an assessment of injuries, asked the defendant “who was driving?”

The defendant answered “I was.” The paramedic overheard this conversation as he was reporting the situation to the nurse. This question is necessary for medical personnel in order to determine the likelihood of certain injuries affected by the location of the patient in the automobile, i.e., relationship to steering wheel, dashboard, windshield, etc.

Upon cross-examination, the paramedic agreed that defendant was agitated and upset and at one point began crying. He was quoted as saying, “I want this to end; I want to go home; just want to forget this.” The paramedic testified that intravenous catheters were presented the defendant on two occasions, first at the scene and second during the ambulance run. In both cases, he was simply given normal saline, .9% solution. The paramedic also reiterated the necessity of continued communication with the patient in order to keep them alert.

Also testifying was a trooper with the Maine State Police who arrived at the scene immediately following the rescue vehicle. He, too, observed the car in collision with the tree and a dead passenger. He observed the defendant lying on the ground. As the defendant was being tended by the rescue personnel, the trooper testified he asked him his name and the defendant responded “Denny.” The trooper also asked who was the driver and quoted the defendant as saying, “I was but no more.”

Two other rescue personnel were presented as witnesses, a Gardiner fire department firefighter and a Gardiner fire department firefighter/paramedic. Both observed the mental assessment process. The paramedic was present during the chest decompression and heard the statement of the defendant that he felt like he was being stabbed in the heart. He also heard statements by the defendant that he had been

coming from a party in Farmingdale, had two drinks and was driving.

On behalf of the defendant, a high school classmate testified that on July 17, in the evening hours, she spent two and a half hours at Marguerita’s, a restaurant in Augusta. She indicated she left about 10:30 p.m. She testified that the defendant visited with her at the restaurant commencing at approximately 8:00 p.m. and that he left a few minutes before 10:30 p.m.

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