State v. Athayde

• Decision Date: 05 July 2022
• Docket Number: Docket: Oxf-21-302
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Rondon ATHAYDE
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

277 A.3d 387

2022 ME 41

STATE of Maine

v.Rondon ATHAYDE

Docket: Oxf-21-302

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 11, 2022

Decided: July 5, 2022

Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law LLC, York, for appellant Rondon Athayde

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ.^*

CONNORS, J.

[¶1] Rondon Athayde appeals from a judgment of conviction of murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A), (B) (2018),¹ entered by the trial court (Oxford County, Stokes, J. ) after a jury trial, and from his sentence of fifty years in prison. He argues that (A) the court erred in denying his motion to suppress upon concluding that his statements to law enforcement while walking them through his home were voluntary, (B) the court erred in denying Athayde's motion for judgment of acquittal because a jury could not rationally find that his conduct was sufficient to cause the victim's death, (C) the court committed obvious error by failing to instruct the jury on concurrent causation, and (D) the court misapplied legal principles or abused its sentencing power in considering a history of domestic violence between Athayde and the victim in determining his basic sentence. We affirm the judgment of conviction and the sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Dorweiler , 2016 ME 73, ¶ 6, 143 A.3d 114.

[¶3] On the night of December 12, 2018, and in the early morning hours of December 13, 2018, Rondon Athayde struck the victim² at least forty-three times using metal curtain rods and a wooden coat hanger while they were in their shared home with their two daughters, ages three and four. As a result of the injuries that Athayde inflicted at that time and the aggravation of injuries that he had previously inflicted on the victim, the victim lost roughly two-thirds of her blood through both internal and external bleeding, which caused her death.

[¶4] On December 14, 2018, the State charged Athayde by complaint with intentional or knowing murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A). He was later charged by indictment with intentional or knowing murder or depraved indifference murder, 17-A M.R.S. § 201(1)(A), (B).

A. Motion to Suppress

[¶5] On November 4, 2019, Athayde moved to suppress statements that he made as he walked through his home with the police on December 13, 2018, and described to them, over the course of an hour and a half, what had happened. The court held a hearing on the motion on August 27, 2020. The only issue before the court was the voluntariness of Athayde's statements to the police at Athayde's home.

[¶6] During the suppression hearing, the court admitted in evidence audio recordings of Athayde's police interviews and a video recording of Athayde's walk-through of his home with the police. It also admitted transcripts of the interviews and heard testimony from three detectives about their interactions with Athayde on December 13 after his arrest.

[¶7] The court entered an order on October 16, 2020, in which it found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. These findings are all supported by competent evidence, including the video and audio recordings of police interviews with Athayde, which we have reviewed in full. See State v. Fleming , 2020 ME 120, ¶ 25, 239 A.3d 648 ; State v. Akers , 2021 ME 43, ¶ 46, 259 A.3d 127.

[¶8] Athayde called 9-1-1 from his home after midnight on December 13, 2018, and police arrived at about 1:00 a.m. Athayde was placed in police custody and brought to the Oxford Police Department. There, two detectives interviewed him beginning at 4:13 a.m. At the outset, one of the detectives administered Miranda³ warnings, and Athayde acknowledged that he understood his rights. He was able to describe in his own words what the warnings meant. Athayde signed a written waiver of his rights and indicated that he wanted to cooperate.

[¶9] The officers were professional, respectful, and nonconfrontational in their interview. They did not raise their voices, and Athayde thanked them for their treatment of him. At times, Athayde became emotional and sobbed, overwhelmed by the enormity of the events, but he was able to refocus quickly and describe what had happened. The detectives allowed Athayde to express his feelings, and they did not interrupt him, instead waiting for him to be able to control his feelings and continue with the conversation. The detectives frequently offered Athayde food, water, or coffee, but Athayde declined their offers, except that he did eat some crackers.

[¶10] With Athayde's consent, the detectives brought him to his home at approximately 4:24 p.m. that same day, after evidence technicians had processed the scene. One of the detectives reminded Athayde of his Miranda rights before beginning a walk-through. The officer informed him that he did not have to participate and could refuse to do so. Athayde indicated that he understood and that he would participate.

[¶11] In the presence of four detectives, Athayde walked from room to room describing and showing what had happened. As Athayde explained the events, the lead detective redirected him if he strayed from the subject or was unclear. The walk-through ended at about 5:53 p.m.

[¶12] During the totality of his time with the detectives, Athayde said that he had performed CPR on the victim and that it had made him tired. He said that he was fatigued and overwhelmed at times. He was in handcuffs during the walk-through; it is not clear whether he was wearing handcuffs at the police station. Athayde did not sleep during the entire time he was with the detectives. A detective offered him the opportunity to rest, but he appeared to want to continue to speak with the detective. No bed or cot was available, and he was only able to sit in a chair or lie down on the floor. He probably had not slept since waking up on December 12.

[¶13] Athayde told the detectives that he felt sick. This feeling of illness resulted from his emotional reaction to what had happened between him and the victim, and he remained able to appreciate and understand what was happening. One of the detectives offered to call an ambulance, but Athayde declined.

[¶14] Based on these findings, the court denied Athayde's motion to suppress, concluding that, in the totality of the circumstances, Athayde made the statements during the walk-through voluntarily.

B. Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal

[¶15] The court held a jury trial on June 15, 16, and 17, 2021. The court admitted the video of the walk-through in evidence. The State did not offer any of the audio recordings from the interviews at the police station in evidence, although it did offer a detective's testimony about the interviews. At the close of the State's evidence, Athayde moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court denied the motion. Athayde did not testify and called no witnesses in his defense.

[¶16] The jury found Athayde guilty.

C. Sentencing

[¶17] The court held a sentencing hearing on August 31, 2021. The victim's sister and Athayde each spoke to the court, and the court heard arguments from both parties before delivering its sentence. The court considered the purposes of sentencing and conducted the requisite two-part sentencing analysis.⁴ See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1201(1)(A), 1252-C (2018) ; State v. Bentley , 2021 ME 39, ¶ 10, 254 A.3d 1171. Considering the nature of the crime in setting the basic sentence, the court focused on the serious domestic violence, describing it as "one of the most brutal, savage and vicious beatings" the court had seen as an attorney or judge—an assault that involved the use of hard objects, lasted for hours, and was not the first act of domestic violence that Athayde had perpetrated against the victim.⁵ The court set the basic sentence at forty-five years based in part on these considerations.

[¶18] The court then considered aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found as mitigating factors that Athayde had no criminal history, had prior work history and education, and had cooperated with the police and expressed remorse, though he did minimize his role and misrepresented how the victim was injured. As aggravating factors, the court considered the impact on the parties’ young daughters, who were present in the home throughout these events and saw or heard some of what happened, and the conscious pain and suffering of the victim during the hours of abuse. The court concluded that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors and set a maximum and final sentence of fifty years in prison. The court also ordered Athayde to pay $35 to the Victims’ Compensation Fund and $3,198.47 to the Victims’ Compensation Program.

[¶19] Athayde timely appealed from the judgment of conviction and successfully applied to the Sentence Review Panel for review of his sentence. 15 M.R.S. §§ 2115, 2151 - 2152 (2022) ; M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1), 20.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Although the question is close under the Maine Constitution, the court did not err in denying Athayde's motion to suppress the video recording of his walk-through of what happened in his home.

[¶20] Athayde relies on both the Maine and United States Constitutions in challenging the finding that his statements made during the walk-through were voluntary. We therefore analyze this claim applying the primacy approach. See State v. Reeves , 2022 ME 10, ¶ 41, 268 A.3d 281 ; State v. Cadman , 476 A.2d 1148, 1150 (Me. 1984). This means that we first examine the merits of the state constitutional claim, independently of the federal constitutional claim. See Reeves , 2022 ME 10, ¶ 41, 268 A.3d 281. We proceed to review the application of the federal Constitution only if the state constitution does not settle the issue. See id. ¶...