State v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 29 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket: Cum–15–493 |
| Citation | 151 A.3d 911 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Timothy M. HUNT |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Verne E. Paradie, Jr., Esq., (orally), Paradie, Sherman, Walker & Worden, Lewiston, for appellant Timothy Hunt
Stephanie Anderson, District Attorney, and William J. Barry, Asst. Dist. Atty., (orally), Prosecutorial District No. Two, Portland, for appellee State of Maine
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
[¶ 1] Timothy M. Hunt appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the trial court (Cumberland County, Moskowitz, J. ) after a jury found him guilty of six counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C) (2015), and six counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(E–1) (2015). Hunt argues that the court (Wheeler, J. ) erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of inculpatory statements he made during a police interview. Although he also raises a number of issues from the trial, we need consider only the admissibility of the evidence of his confession. Because we conclude that the confession should have been suppressed, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand the case for a new trial.
[¶ 2] On December 4, 2013, the Cumberland County Grand Jury issued an indictment charging Hunt with six counts of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C), and six counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(E–1), involving an eight-year-old victim. After pleading not guilty to the charges, Hunt moved to suppress evidence of incriminating statements he made during an interview with two Scarborough Police Department detectives.
[¶ 3] At the hearing on his motion, Hunt argued that his incriminating statements during the interview were motivated by improper promises of leniency and were therefore involuntary. The court (Wheeler, J. ) heard testimony from a psychologist who had evaluated Hunt, from the detectives, and from Hunt. The parties stipulated to the admission of four psychological assessment reports and a recording of the police interview that included both video and audio.
[¶ 4] The recording shows that the following interactions took place. During the first part of the interview, Hunt repeatedly denied touching the victim inappropriately. Throughout the interview, the detectives challenged Hunt's denials with, inter alia, minimization of the moral blame associated with the alleged conduct, pleas to "do the right thing," and urges to avoid having the victim "go through" a trial. Before he had confessed to any wrongdoing, but in response to questioning, Hunt expressed concern that admitting to "something like this could put [him] on that list," apparently referring to the Maine Sex Offender Registry. In response, one of the detectives told him, "don't worry about that," "don't worry about going on the list," and "we're not gonna worry about anything else outside of this room, Tim, because it will work out, it will be fine."
[¶ 5] Later, during a portion of the interview led by a second detective, the second detective told Hunt:
[y]ou were worried about being on some kind of a list—not everybody ends up on the list . I'll tell you the guys that end up on the list. Those are the guys that I'm talking about on the other end of the scale. The guys that hang out by schools, and they take pictures of little kids in places in public, and they put themselves in positions that they can be around kids for the sole purpose of perpetrating on a child. Those are the guys that end up on lists. Guys like you ... they don't end up [in] situations like that dramatic. They get help and they get opportunities like you're being given here today ....
(Emphases added.)
(Emphases added.) The first detective returned to the interview room. Resuming the interview, he said, (Emphasis added.)
[¶ 7] After Hunt made some incriminating statements, the first detective asked him why he hadn't confessed earlier in the interview. Hunt explained that he "didn't know how to word it," that "maybe the right questions wasn't coming up for the right answer," and that his "mind's slow" and "isn't like all the other minds that catch on." Hunt also said, (Emphasis added.) Only after Hunt had incriminated himself did the first detective tell Hunt that he and his colleague were "not in control of that list."
[¶ 8] In a written order denying Hunt's motion, the court found that Hunt had gone willingly to the Scarborough Police Department with the detectives to be interviewed, knowing that they wanted to talk to him about information they had received from the Department of Health and Human Services about "sexual allegations." The court also found the following facts about the interview. The detectives told Hunt that he was not under arrest, that he did not have to go with them, and that they would drive him back home at any time. After bringing Hunt into an interview room, the first detective started an audio and video recording and told Hunt that the interview was being recorded. He told Hunt that he was free to leave and advised him of his Miranda rights. After stating each "right," the first detective asked whether Hunt understood, and Hunt responded affirmatively.
[¶ 9] The court further found that after the second detective left the room, the first detective "reentered and used police interrogation techniques, including minimization of the crime."1 The court found that Hunt eventually "confessed to sexual contact" with the victim.
[¶ 10] Although noting that Hunt's "cognitive skills are less than average," the court stated "there was no indication of any impairment of Hunt's physical or mental condition." The suppression court had two reports from psychologists who measured Hunt's cognitive capacity. One measured Hunt's composite IQ as 81, with a nonverbal skills score of 92 and a verbal skills score of 75; another measured Hunt's composite IQ as 75, with a nonverbal skills score of 90 and a verbal skills score of 67.
[¶ 11] Although Hunt testified at the suppression hearing that he had snorted Vicodin
on the day of the interview, and was taking other medications prescribed for him, namely Wellbutrin (an antidepressant) and Risperdal (an antipsychotic), the court also found that "the video does not disclose any bizarre, psychotic or ... drug-induced behavior"; "Hunt appeared to be alert and rational, and he could respond to questions with appropriate answers."
[¶ 12] In a footnote apparently directed at Hunt's argument that his statements were involuntary in light of the detectives' references to "the list," the court stated that "[t]here is nothing illegal with ... trying to narrow and shift the focus of the investigation on the critical issues, rather than possible outcomes in the case." The court concluded, "The detectives ['] interviewing techniques were fundamentally fair and Hunt's confession was not a product of coercive police conduct."2
[¶ 13] As a result of the court's ruling, the recording of Hunt's confession was admitted in evidence at trial, over his continuing objection.
[¶ 14] The court (Moskowitz, J. ) held a four-day jury trial in late July of 2015. Just before trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Hunt's proposed expert testimony regarding police interrogation techniques and risk factors associated with false confessions. After the parties conducted a voir dire of the expert, the court granted the State's motion, concluding that the testimony was inadmissible pursuant to M.R. Evid. 702 based on its findings that "it ha[d]n't been demonstrated in the voir dire that there is a reliable scientific basis for determining some causal relationship" between certain interrogation techniques and unreliable confessions, and "the subject matter of the proposed testimony is really not beyond the common knowledge of a lay juror."
[¶ 15] The jury found Hunt guilty of all twelve charges. The court entered a judgment on the verdict and sentenced Hunt to twenty-five years of unsuspended imprisonment for each of the gross sexual assault charges and five years of unsuspended imprisonment for each of the unlawful sexual contact charges, all to be served concurrently, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. Hunt appealed from the judgment of conviction.3
[¶ 16] Hunt contends that the court (Wheeler, J. ) erred by denying his motion to suppress because his incriminating statements were motivated by improper promises of leniency by police and were therefore involuntary. "The determination of whether a statement is voluntary is a mixed question of fact and law ...." State v. Bryant , 2014 ME 94, ¶ 15, 97 A.3d 595. We review "the cou...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carrillo
...doubt that Carrillo's statements to police were voluntary, and it denied Carrillo's motion to suppress those statements. See State v. Hunt , 2016 ME 172, ¶ 17, 151 A.3d 911.[¶11] The court conducted a nine-day jury trial in December of 2019. Among the defense witnesses called by Carrillo wa......
-
State v. Lemeunier-Fitzgerald
...determine the voluntariness of a waiver [of Miranda rights], it is necessary to look at the totality of the circumstances ...."); State v. Hunt , 2016 ME 172, ¶¶ 19–22, 151 A.3d 911 (explaining that voluntariness of a confession is determined by examining the totality of the Dickerson v. Un......
-
State v. Athayde
...the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system by deterring police misconduct and protecting human integrity. See State v. Hunt , 2016 ME 172, ¶ 19, 151 A.3d 911 (requiring consideration of whether, even in the absence of coercion, the admission of the statements would "create an i......
-
State v. Akers
...of pressure or trickery,[8] his age, physical and mental condition, emotional condition, and conduct are of particular importance. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, K 38, 151 A.3d Rees, 2000 ME 55, ¶¶ 7-9, 748 A.2d 976. Here, the totality of the circumstances establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that def......