State v. Beland

• Decision Date: 01 August 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-443,93-443
• Citation: 138 N.H. 735,645 A.2d 79
• Parties: The STATE of New Hampshire v. Albert BELAND
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 79

645 A.2d 79

138 N.H. 735

The STATE of New Hampshire v. Albert BELAND

No. 93-443.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Aug. 1, 1994.

Jeffrey R. Howard, Atty. Gen. (Patrick E. Donovan, attorney, on the brief and orally), for State.

Albert E. Scherr, Asst. Appellate Defender, Concord, by brief and orally, for defendant.

THAYER, Justice.

The defendant, Albert Beland, was convicted on five misdemeanor counts of illegal gambling, contrary to RSA 647:2 (1986), and one felony count of conspiracy to falsify physical evidence, contrary to RSA 629:3 and 641:6 (1986). On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress certain statements that he made to two police officers, contending that these statements were involuntary because they were made after the interrogating officers promised confidentiality and after one of the officers informed the defendant that his cooperation with the authorities would be taken into consideration. We affirm.

The charges against the defendant stemmed from the illegal use of electronic video poker machines for gambling purposes at Big Al's Amory Street Coffee House, Inc. ("Big Al's") in Manchester, of which the defendant was the proprietor. Beginning in August 1991, State and local law enforcement officials conducted an undercover investigation of illegal gambling in Manchester, which culminated in the issuance in March 1992 of search warrants for twenty-five different establishments. The issuance of the warrants and the date of the impending searches were kept strictly confidential. On the day of the planned search, as the police were secretly preparing the twenty-five search teams, two officers conducting surveillance on Big Al's observed a truck arrive and saw two men begin to load five video poker machines removed from Big Al's onto the truck. The surveilling officers radioed their commanding officers that the video poker machines were being removed, blocked the truck's departure, and secured the scene.

Within minutes, Lieutenant James Stewart and two other officers arrived at Big Al's with search warrants for the premises and for the defendant. Stewart, who knew the defendant, explained to him that he was not under arrest and was free to leave, but that Stewart would prefer that he stay to observe the collection of monies as part of the search. The defendant voluntarily remained.

The defendant's appeal concerns statements that he made during two interviews with police officers. The first occurred toward the end of the search of Big Al's, when the defendant agreed to speak to Stewart in the back room. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Stewart testified that he asked the defendant who had tipped him off to the raid that afternoon. The defendant refused to provide that information, although he did confirm that he had been given a tip. At trial, Stewart testified that he asked the defendant "[b]etween him and me ... if he could give me who tipped him off" to the impending search of the premises that day.

The second interview occurred four days after the first, when the defendant and State Trooper Roland Lamy, with whom the defendant was personally acquainted, went for a drive. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Lamy testified that he asked the defendant to identify the tipster, and the defendant did so. Lamy told the defendant that if he cooperated with the police, his cooperation would be taken into consideration, although Lamy stated that he did not know specifically what form this consideration would take and that the defendant should discuss the matter with others. At trial, Lamy additionally testified that at the beginning of this non-custodial interview, he explained that his superiors had instructed him to contact the defendant in an effort to determine the tipster's identity. During the interview, the defendant expressed his fear of retaliation from the police officers involved should he disclose the tipster, and Lamy told the defendant that he would report the information to Deputy Police Chief Paul Brodeur, whom Lamy trusted, "[a]nd no one else."

The Superior Court (Lynn, J.) revisited the confidentiality issue at trial in light of the additional testimony described above, but ultimately decided not to exclude the defendant's statements to either officer.

The defendant argues that his statements were involuntary because he relied upon promises of confidentiality from each officer, and thus their admission at trial violated both the State and Federal Constitutions. Under part I, article 15 of our State Constitution, the State must prove the voluntariness of the defendant's statements beyond a reasonable doubt, a more stringent standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard required under the Federal Constitution. State v. Laurie, 135 N.H. 438, 444, 606 A.2d 1077, 1080, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 886, 113 S.Ct. 245, 121 L.Ed.2d 178 (1992). Accordingly we will review the trial court's determination under the more demanding State constitutional standard. Id. at 444-45, 606 A.2d at 1080.

"A determination of the voluntariness of a confession is a question of fact for the trial court to decide. Such a finding is entitled to stand unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, as viewed in the light most favorable to the State." State v. Chapman, 135 N.H. 390, 399, 605 A.2d 1055, 1061 (1992) (quotations, citations, and ellipses omitted). In determining the voluntariness of the confession, the trial court must examine the...