State of Maine v. Zorrilla

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedApril 15, 2009
DocketKENcr-08-043
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Zorrilla (State of Maine v. Zorrilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Zorrilla, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. Docket No.: 08-CR-043 (.. ) j I I

State of Maine,

DECISION AND ORDER v.

Abraham Zorrilla,

Defendant

This matter was heard on April 6, 2009, on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence. Assistant Attorney General William Savage represented the State. Attorney James Billings represented the Defendant. 1 Through his motion, Defendant seeks to suppress evidence that Defendant maintains was obtained after Defendant invoked his right to counsel, which evidence includes statements made by the Defendant.

Factual Background

The hearing revealed that on January 15, 2008, law enforcement officials conducted a search of property in which Melissa Massie was residing. After law enforcement entered the residence, before proceeding with the search, they placed Ms. Massie and the Defendant, who was present at the time, in handcuffs and directed them to sit in a specific location.

While the search was being conducted, Defendant and Peter Struck of the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency engaged in a brief conversation. As the result of that conversation, Agent Struck arranged to speak with Defendant in Agent Struck's vehicle. Defendant contends that while he was in the residence, he communicated in Spanish to

I Upon Defendant's request, a Spanish-speaking interpreter was provided, and assisted Defendant

in preparation for and during the hearing. Ms. Massie that he wanted to consult with a lawyer before speaking with Agent Struck. According to Defendant, Ms. Massie communicated that to Agent Struck, or at least in Agent Struck's presence. Agent Struck refuted Defendant's contention, and further testified that he did not hear Defendant speak in Spanish during the search.

Subsequently, Agent Struck met with the Defendant in Agent Struck's vehicle. Before questioning the Defendant, Agent Struck informed the Defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant told Agent Struck that he understood the rights as explained. Defendant did not ask to speak with an attorney. Thereafter, Defendant answered Agent Struck's questions.

Discussion Defendant asserts that he invoked his right to counsel when he was in the residence during the search. In particular, he contends that he expressed his desire to speak with an attorney in Spanish, and that Ms. Massie expressed it in English.

The Maine Law Court recently had an opportunity to reiterate the scope of a person's right to counsel when that person is subject to a custodial interrogation? In State v. Neilsen, 2008 ME 77, 946 A.2d 382, the Law Court wrote, "The United States Supreme Court established in Miranda v. Arizona that, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, a suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. 384 U.S. 436, 469-70,86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). If a defendant invokes his right to counsel at any time during an interview with police, 'he is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation.' Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 129 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1994); see also State v. King, 1998 ME 60, P9, 708 A.2d 1014, 1017 (providing that Maine courts apply the Davis rule in assessing invocations of the right to counsel)."

2008 ME 77,' 15.

2The State agrees that Agent Struck conducted a custodial interrogation of Defendant while Defendant was in Agent Struck's vehicle. As the Law Court confirmed in Neilsen, a defendant must invoke the right to counsel in order for a defendant's right to counsel to be implicated during a custodial interrogation. In this case, the parties dispute whether the Defendant asked to speak with an attorney.

Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court concludes that Defendant did not invoke his right to counsel. Simply stated, the Court finds the Defendant's testimony regarding his request for an attorney to be less than credible. During the interrogation, Defendant demonstrated a familiarity with and a clear understanding of the English language. He plainly understood Agent Struck's questions, and answered them in English without difficulty. Given the Defendant's ability to speak English, his suggestion that he used the Spanish language to invoke his right to counsel is illogical. Furthermore, consistent with Agent Struck's testimony that the Defendant did not speak in a language other than English when the Defendant was in the residence, Defendant's testimony is uncorroborated by any other person who was present during the search. Finally, had the Defendant invoked his right to counsel in the residence, he presumably would have reminded Agent Struck of his request when he had a conversation in English with Agent Struck while they were in Agent Struck's vehicle?

In sum, based on the evidence presented, the Court concludes that Defendant did not request to speak with an attorney prior to or during the custodial interrogation on January 15,2008.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

3 The Court does not suggest that Defendant had to invoke the right to counsel a second time if he had requested counsel while he was in the residence. Rather, the Court cites Defendant's failure to reiterate the request as further evidence of Defendant's lack of credibility on the central issue­ whether Defendant requested counsel in the residence as he asserts. The Clerk shall incorporate this Decision and Order into the docket by reference.

Dated: ,,/to/Of STA.TE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. ABRAHAM ZORRILLA Docket No AUGSC-CR-2008-00043 7 TEMPLE STREET LAWRENCE MA DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 09/10/1986 Attorney: JAMES BILLINGS State's Attorney: WILLIAM SAVAGE LIPMAN & KATZ & MCKEE, PA 227 WATER STREET PO BOX 1051 AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051 APPOINTED 05/19/2008

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 01/16/2008

Charge(s)

1 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULE W DRUG 01/15/2008 AUGUSTA Seq 11072 17-A 1105-A(I) (E) (1) Class A

2 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 01/15/2008 AUGUSTA Seq 7049 15 5826 Class U Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem

Docket Events:

01/16/2008 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 01/16/2008

01/16/2008 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 01/16/2008 @ 1:00

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/17/2008 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 01/16/2008 JOHN NIVISON, JUSTICE 01/17/2008 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/16/2008

01/17/2008 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 03/11/2008 @ 10:00

01/17/2008 BAIL BOND - $10,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 01/16/2008 JOHN NIVISON, JUSTICE 01/17/2008 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/16/2008

01/22/2008 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 01/18/2008 JOHN NIVISON, JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/22/2008 Party(s): ABRAHAM ZORRILLA ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 7 Printed on: 04/15/2009 ABRAHAM ZORRILLA AUGSC-CR-2008-00043 DOCKET RECORD

Attorney: KEVIN SULLIVAN 01/22/2008 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 01/30/2008

01/28/2008 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL FILED BY COUNSEL ON 01/25/2008

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

Related

Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (Supreme Court, 1966)
Davis v. United States
512 U.S. 452 (Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. King
1998 ME 60 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
State v. Nielsen
2008 ME 77 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Zorrilla, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-zorrilla-mesuperct-2009.