State v. Ramsey, WAL CR-99-90
| Decision Date | 20 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | WAL CR-99-90 |
| Parties | STATE OF MAINE v. NATACHIA RAMSEY, Defendant |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION
ORDER ON MOTIONS
This matter is before the court on three motions brought by the defendant. On April 27, 1999, the defendant was indicted for intentionally and knowingly causing the death of Hunter Ramsey, defendant's child. On July 19, 1999, defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a search of her home pursuant to a warrant, a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant to the investigating detective of the Maine State Police, and a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant to employees of the Searsport Ambulance Service. The motion to suppress the statements to the detective is founded upon alleged violations of Miranda v. Arizona and the motion to suppress statements to the Searsport Ambulance Service are based upon State v Caouette. The challenge to the search of defendant's home alleges that the affidavit for the search warrant utilized statements made by the defendant that are privileged under M.R. Evid. 503.
The court held two evidentiary hearings on the motions as consolidated, taking testimony from the first deputy sheriff on the scene, the retired director of the Searsport Ambulance Service, an emergency medical technician (EMT) with the Searsport Rescue Service, a detective of the Maine State Police, a licensed clinical
social worker with Mid-Coast Mental Health, and a support information referral resource person from the Ingraham Crisis Center. From these witnesses and the evidence admitted, this court finds the following facts as to the events of April 11 1999, the date of the alleged offense.
On that date, the defendant, a person with a history of severe emotional and psychological deprivation, found herself in a mobile home in rural Searsport with her youngest child, born March 11, 1999. Repeated attempts by the defendant to cause her estranged husband to come to the trailer and discuss marital matters with her had been unsuccessful. Sometime during the day, her husband came to the trailer to pick up their older child, a seven year-old daughter, but the husband left without conferring with the defendant. As a result, the defendant, in a sense of abandonment and continuing to suffer from depression which marked a major influence of her life called the local medical facility to obtain the phone number of a crisis center. The purpose of the call to the crisis center is unclear. On the one hand, the defendant was intent on committing suicide. On the other hand, the defendant appeared to be reaching out for help to relieve her of her dire circumstances.' The person taking the call at the crisis center, an individual of significant education and experience, described the telephone demeanor of the defendant as a person suffering from great guilt and depression seeking to end her life. At one point, the crisis worker surmised that the defendant had a baby in her presence and became concerned over the welfare of that baby. As the discussion progressed, the defendant's affect moved from great guilt and hysteria to reasonable and
comprehensible conversation but as the crisis worker attempted to make inquiry with respect to a baby, the defendant went into extreme crying, wailing, and was unresponsive. The crisis worker attempted to obtain the defendant's location, but she gave him a telephone number inconsistent with the caller I.D. display at the crisis center. As other employees of the center were attempting to alert authorities in the Searsport area, they became aware that the location given by the defendant was inconsistent with the information received from rescue personnel and a law enforcement officer.
On three occasions, the defendant left the phone and remained away, leaving the line connected. Ultimately, the crisis worker was successful in calming the defendant to the point that he was satisfied she was rationally explaining her situation, including the information that she had recently ingested 20 Tylenol P.M. pills. She confirmed the number with the crisis worker by stating that she had counted the pills and they were all she had in the house. The crisis worker described the defendant at this point in the conversation as "grounded," meaning that he detected she had regained control of her emotions and was talking things out. However, the authorities were ultimately successful in reaching the correct mobile home. Failing to receive a response by knocking at the door, the deputy sheriff knocked down the door and "cleared" the trailer. At the time of the deputy sheriff's entry, the defendant was on the phone with the crisis worker. Immediately upon her advising the worker that the authorities were at her door she became emotionally overwrought and started crying, wailing, and otherwise displaying
severe emotion. At the same time, she dropped the phone but did not hang it up. The crisis center determined that the rescue workers had the correct location through a combination of telephone lines with the Sheriff's Department and the open line connection.
When the deputy sheriff entered the trailer, he immediately noticed blood in the kitchen and as he raced through the structure to "clear" the building, he noted the defendant in the bathroom. The EMT's went into the bathroom where they found the defendant sitting on the floor with her hands and lower arms in a bathtub full of warm water. The water was red from the blood coming from the wrists of the defendant. Defendant held a razor in one hand. She was crying uncontrollably and acting as if she wanted to be left alone. She would not relinquish the razor in spite of requests by the EMT's. She advised the EMT's that she wanted to die. Unsolicited, she advised the EMT's within the earshot of the deputy sheriff that her baby was in the bedroom. An EMT immediately went to the bedroom and discovered the dead child. After repeated pleadings, the EMT's were successful in recovering the razor from the hand of the defendant, draining the bathtub, bandaging her wrists, and walking her to the living area of the mobile home where she was placed on a ambulance stretcher and taken to the Searsport Ambulance Service vehicle.
In the bathroom in the mobile home and during the ride to the hospital in the ambulance, the defendant made repeated statements implicating her responsibility for the death of her child. The context was that she wanted to die, she
wished the medical personnel would leave her alone and let her die, that there was no hope for herself and her baby, and that she wanted to be with her baby in death.
At the hospital, the defendant's wrists were sutured and bandaged. While in the emergency room, a taped interview of the defendant was conducted by a State Police detective. After some preliminary questions, the detective read the Miranda warning to the defendant and solicited her acknowledgement and understanding. The defendant was highly unresponsive. While it is difficult to determine from listening to the audiotape, apparently, and the detective so testified, at this point the defendant acknowledged her understanding of her rights under the principles of Miranda. It is clear, however, that she advised the detective that she did not wish to talk. It is also clear, under the totality of the circumstances, that she wanted them to leave so that she could be left alone with her grief. Nevertheless, the detective advised the defendant that while she did not have to answer his questions, he was going to continue to ask questions and she could then advise him whether she would no longer answer any questions, or just some questions, and that she could advise him as to which questions she would be willing to answer. The detective characterized the interview in the emergency room as being an attempt to determine the welfare of the defendant's older child and to determine what could be done to assist her in her dilemma. However, interspersed with questions as to her family and the other child, were questions directly related to the death of the baby. In spite of being told that she did not want to answer his questions, the detective asked the defendant, "What happened today?" At a later time in the discussion he
asked, "Why did this happen?" As he continued his questions and comments in support of her terrible dilemma he asked, "What could have prevented this from happening?" At one point the officer said that a lot of this type of thing was happening in Maine today, that there had been enough tragedy today, and that he was trying to prevent further tragedy. At this point, the defendant went into a very deep and hard crying. As the detective attempted to place responsibility for the defendant's horrible situation, the defendant stated, "Chris wouldn't help." Shortly thereafter the detective asked, "What happened that made it happen?" Shortly thereafter he asked, "What about Hunter?" The defendant responded by saying that she, "wanted Hunter with me."
After this interview, the defendant was taken by medical personnel to the intensive care unit of the hospital. While there, the officers continuing their questioning of her, and sought to receive a consent to search her home. As they discussed the consent and advised defendant of her rights under such consent principles, she asked the detective, "Why do you want to search the trailer?" The officer's response was, "Why do you think we want to search?" Her response'was, "It doesn't matter."
The following morning a crisis worker with Mid-Coast Mental Health, upon request, went to the Waldo County Hospital for purposes of completing a "blue paper" process evaluation. She met with the defendant and...
To continue reading
Request your trial