State v. O'Neill

Decision Date29 March 2019
Docket NumberNo. 17-307,17-307
Citation209 A.3d 1213
Parties STATE of Vermont v. Robin O'NEILL
CourtVermont Supreme Court

David Tartter, Deputy State's Attorney, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and Rebecca Turner, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson and Eaton, JJ., and Howard, Supr. J.(Ret.), Specially Assigned

ROBINSON, J.

¶ 1.DefendantRobin O'Neill appeals from a jury conviction for aggravated murder of her ex-fiancé and his son.She argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; that her statements to police should have been suppressed because they were the product of custodial interrogation without an attorney after she invoked her right to one; and that those statements should have been suppressed because the police coerced her into making them, depriving her of due process.We hold that the evidence sufficiently and fairly supports the conviction; and that the statements defendant seeks to suppress were not made in response to police interrogation, and were not the product of police coercion, and thus were properly admitted.Accordingly, we affirm.

¶ 2.The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, reflected the following.Defendant and Steven Lott began a relationship in early 2014.She subsequently moved into his house, and they got engaged that July.

¶ 3.In September 2014, Steven's neighbor and friend, who lived part-time in California, returned to Vermont.Steven began spending a lot of time at her house, which upset defendant.Throughout that fall, defendant and Steven argued about their relationship and about Steven's relationship with neighbor.Defendant considered moving out of the house.

¶ 4.That October, defendant threatened and physically hurt Steven, and when Steven would visit neighbor, defendant would at times follow him.Defendant wrote in her diary on October 27, "I got pretty drunk.S down to [neighbor's].I knocked on dr; not let in.Listened window – basement.S said I threatened to kill him."Defendant's diary reflected that on October 25she discussed with Steven that she"had hit him on [the] head with firewood."Neighbor testified that around late October, Steven came to her house and seemed unfocused and distressed; she thought at the time he might have a head injury.After neighbor touched Steven's head to see if he was injured, she heard tapping on the storm door, and when they called out to ask who it was, they heard a female voice speak but could not make out the words.Neighbor testified that Steven opened the door, then quickly slammed it.Neighbor heard a car drive away.Around that time, defendant told one of Steven's friends that she had gone down to neighbor's house and stood under a window, listening to Steven and neighbor talking.Defendant said she heard neighbor tell Steven that he needed "to get rid of her."

¶ 5.In early November, defendant told her friend Mike that her engagement with Steven was off.

¶ 6.In the late afternoon of Saturday, November 15, Steven went to neighbor's house to fix her vacuum and remained there for several hours.While he was there, their friend Rob dropped by neighbor's house and visited.Rob testified that while he was there, he saw defendant drive past the house six times.

¶ 7.Sometime that same Saturday, Steven hit defendant, causing bruises to her shoulder, legs, arm, head, and buttocks.Late that night, Steven went to neighbor's house.Neighbor and her daughter testified that he appeared disheveled and scared.He said he had been in bed arguing with defendant when she rolled over and reached for a drawer in her bedside table.He leapt up, grabbed clothes, and fled.Neighbor's daughter asked what was in the bedside table, and Steven replied, "I don't know, and I didn't want to find out."

¶ 8.On Sunday, November 16, witnesses who were driving by neighbor's house saw defendant walking around behind the house, then saw Steven drive quickly up to it.Around that time, Steven told defendanthe wanted her out of the house.

¶ 9.On Tuesday, November 18, defendant told a number of people that Steven had hit her.In response, her coworker urged her to report it.Defendant responded that she wasn't "going to do that, because it was never going to happen again."Defendant then angrily told her coworker about Steven's sexual failings and the resulting impact on their relationship.Later, when defendant told an acquaintance about the assault, she also told the acquaintance that Steven had said he should have married neighbor.Defendant also told the acquaintance that she planned to move out of the house.

¶ 10.In the afternoon of Tuesday, November 18, defendant began to drink.When Steven's friend Morgan came over in the late afternoon, he found Steven, his son Jamis, and defendant sitting and talking in the kitchen area.Morgan testified that defendant told him she was not with Steven anymore, tried to kiss him, and asked if he wanted to have sex.He declined, and defendant went upstairs.Morgan said it sounded like she started breaking things.He did not see any guns in the kitchen area, although this was not surprising as he knew that Steven kept his guns upstairs.

¶ 11.At around 7:00 or 7:30 that evening, neighbor received three calls.Each time, the caller said nothing and hung up.Caller ID showed that one of the calls was from Steven's house; the other two numbers were blocked.

¶ 12.At 7:54, defendant called an acquaintance, Kristina, but did not say anything, then hung up.Kristina called back and someone picked up the phone but did not speak.

¶ 13.At 8:01, defendant called her sister and told her that Steven had hit her, and that she might be going to stay at a friend's house.She sounded stressed, rushed, and a little embarrassed, but not intoxicated.While they were speaking, defendant got another call, so her sister hung up and waited.

¶ 14.The other caller was Kristina.Kristina asked if Steven was there.Defendant laughed and said no.They had a confused conversation, then defendant said she was on the phone with her sister and hung up.At 8:26, defendant called Kristina again; they had another brief and confused conversation in which defendant apologized for not being able to speak earlier because her sister was on the line.They hung up, and then at 8:38 defendant called back again and they had the exact same conversation.

¶ 15.At 8:48, defendant called her friend Mike.She asked him to take her dog, and when he asked what the problem was, she said, "I just shot Steve and Jamis."She went on, "I did it, I really did it.I just shot Steve and Jamis dead."Mike asked where they were, and she said, "Steve's by my feet in a pool of blood and Jamis is under the table in his own pool of blood."Mike testified that defendant sounded as though she had been drinking.When they hung up, he called the police.

¶ 16.Defendant's sister called her back at 8:58.Defendant picked up and said, "I shot them, I think they're dead, there's blood, there's so much blood.And I don't know how I managed."Her sister asked her why she did it, and defendant said in a sad, confused voice, "I don't know."At that point, she heard police and the call ended.

¶ 17.When police arrived on the scene, they called defendant out of the house.She came out, walking unsteadily on her feet.

¶ 18.A trooper testified that defendant smelled of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot and glassy, her speech was slurred, and she was at times hyperventilating and "in hysterics."A preliminary breath test taken at 9:56 showed that defendant's blood-alcohol content was 0.233.

¶ 19.Once placed in the police cruiser, where a video camera recorded the activity in the back seat, defendant told an officer, "maybe you should shoot me" and he replied, "we're not going to do that."She then said, "I've actually done this just the other night which is what I have pictures of, of Steve beating the holy crap out of me."The officer responded that he was going to pin her handcuffs so they would not tighten up on her.She continued, "Yeah, yeah ya understand the reason I shot the motherfucker oops wait a minute, nope, I didn't say anything, I didn't say anything, I hear a female voice."She then asked, "Would you have somebody here?... A, a like um what do you call them?... A person who defends people who have had the crap beat out of them and then."

¶ 20.Defendant then said, "I could have used another drink before this," and asked if the officer could get the red wine and cigarettes from the house.He said, "I don't know, I can ask.Would you like me to ask for you?" and then inquired several times more if she wanted him to ask for her.She said yes, that would be nice because she was being arrested for murder.The officer then left defendant in the cruiser.She continued to talk to herself, saying "you killed the motherfucker ... but he's dead, dead as a board, he put you through amazing amounts of hell, hell, hell, hell, and hell again, he made you so, he tried terribly to make you nuts."She reflected some awareness that a camera in the cruiser was recording her statements: At one point, she said "of course they're recording anything I say in this car, I shouldn't talk to myself at all."When the officer returned, he told defendanthe had asked about "that glass of wine" and "they said not right now."Defendant did not appear to respond to him, but instead muttered "not exactly a killer," then began to hyperventilate, sob, and express disbelief at what was happening.

¶ 21.Soon thereafter, an officer got in the car and drove her to the police station.During the drive, defendant spoke to herself at length about the events of that night.She expressed disbelief, saying things like, "The one I loved the most?I killed Jamis?I killed you?Yeah ah no, no, no, no, no, couldn't possibly happen."She said, "Jamis was my absolute favorite of you three boys...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • State v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 16 Octubre 2020
    ...that evidence sufficiently and fairly supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, ¶ 35, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213 (quoting State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 21, 183 Vt. 269, 949 A.2d 1035 ). The jury's verdict will stand "so long as the jury by way ......
  • State v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 16 Octubre 2020
    ...that evidence sufficiently and fairly supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, ¶ 35, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213 (quoting State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 21, 183 Vt. 269, 949 A.2d 1035). The jury's verdict will stand "so long as the jury by way o......
  • State v. Robitille
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 17 Mayo 2019
    ...which point toward guilt," it is not our role to second-guess the interpretations of the jury. State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, ¶ 35, ––– Vt. ––––, 209 A.3d 1213. Rather, we determine only "whether the State's theory of the evidence could fairly support the conviction." Id. ; see also State v.......
  • State v. Menize
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 18 Agosto 2023
    ...in which we affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements. 2019 VT 19, ¶ 46, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213. There, the defendant disclosed the statements after she invoked the right to counsel, and she was not provided Miranda warnings. Howeve......
  • Get Started for Free