McIntyre v. State, 031418 AKCA, A-12263

Docket Nº:A-12263
Opinion Judge:MANNHEIMER, JUDGE.
Party Name:SCOTT T. McINTYRE, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Attorney:Rex Lamont Butler, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Wollenberg, Judges.
Case Date:March 14, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT

SCOTT T. McINTYRE, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-12263

Court of Appeals of Alaska

March 14, 2018

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court No. 3AN-13-2677 CR, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Michael R Spaan, Judge.

Rex Lamont Butler, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Wollenberg, Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MANNHEIMER, JUDGE.

Scott T. McIntyre appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of a minor (engaging in sexual penetration with a 13- to 15-year-old who is at least four years younger than oneself).1 For the reasons explained in this opinion, we reject McIntyre's claims of error, and we affirm his conviction.

McIntyre's claim that his statements to the police should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona

McIntyre first argues that the superior court should have suppressed all of the statements that he made to two police detectives during an hour-long interview that took place in his living room several months after the offense. McIntyre contends that he was in custody during this interview - and that, because he was not advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 2 his statements to the detectives should have been suppressed.

The superior court held an evidentiary hearing to investigate this matter. At this hearing, the court heard the testimony of one of the detectives who conducted the interview, as well as the testimony of McIntyre himself. In addition, the parties provided the court with a transcript and an audio recording of the interview.

Based on this evidence, and applying the test for Miranda custody established by the Alaska Supreme Court in Hunter v. State, 3 the superior court concluded that McIntyre was not in custody during the interview at his home. The superior court's analysis was consistent with the law in this area, and the record supports the superior court's ruling.

McIntyre contends that we should at least direct the superior court to reconsider the Miranda issue, because (according to McIntyre) the superior court failed to explicitly resolve two factual issues that were necessary to deciding his suppression claim. He notes that, under Alaska Criminal Rule 12(d), "where factual issues are involved in determining a motion to suppress evidence, the court [must] state its essential findings on the record." McIntyre therefore contends that this Court must remand his case to the superior court for reconsideration, so that the court can explicitly resolve these two factual issues. See Long v. State, 837 P.2d 737, 742 (Alaska App. 1992).

The first factual issue that McIntyre claims must be resolved is McIntyre's assertion that he subjectively felt coerced during his interview with the detectives. But the superior court was not required to explicitly resolve this issue, because the test for Miranda custody does not hinge on a suspect's subjective mental reaction to the questioning. Rather, the test is an objective one: how a reasonable person would have perceived...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP