State v. Wiley

• Decision Date: 14 March 2013
• Docket Number: Docket No. WAL–11–479.
• Citation: State v. Wiley, 2013 ME 30, 61 A.3d 750 (Me. 2013)
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. William A. WILEY.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

61 A.3d 750

2013 ME 30

STATE of Maine

v.William A. WILEY.

Docket No. WAL–11–479.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: June 15, 2012.

Decided: March 14, 2013.

Steven C. Peterson, Esq.(orally), West Rockport, on the briefs, for appellantWilliam A. Wiley.

Eric J. Walker, Dep. Dist. Atty. (orally), Belfast, on the briefs, for appelleeState of Maine.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR, JJ.

Majority: LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, and JABAR, JJ.

Dissenting: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, and GORMAN, JJ.

LEVY, J.

[¶ 1]William A. Wiley appeals from a judgment of conviction of seven counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(E)(2012), and three counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(F)(2012), entered in the trial court( A. Murray, J.) following a jury trial.Wiley argues that the court( Hjelm, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a detective because (A)he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to what he asserts was a custodial interrogation, and (B) his statements made prior to and after his arrest were involuntary.Because we conclude that Wiley's statements were not voluntary, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings.

I.BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] The record on the motion to suppress establishes the following facts, which are presented in the light most favorable to the court's order.SeeState v. Kent,2011 ME 42, ¶ 2, 15 A.3d 1286.On April 15, 2009, William Wiley's stepdaughter, then eighteen years old, reported to Detective Jason Bosco of the Waldo County Sheriff's Office that Wiley had sexual contact with her for a period of six months when she was approximately twelve years old.

[¶ 3] That day, Detective Bosco went to Wiley's residence at approximately 2:00 p.m. to discuss the victim's allegations with him.The detective was wearing plain clothes and his jacket covered his badge and weapon.He informed Wiley that he was conducting an investigation in which Wiley's name had come up, but did not disclose the subject matter of the investigation.Wiley agreed to ride with the detective in his unmarked cruiser to the sheriff's office to answer questions.

[¶ 4] Upon arrival, Detective Bosco took Wiley upstairs to an interview room.The interview room was approximately eight feet by ten feet, with one door, one window, a small table, and two chairs.Wiley sat between the detective and the door, with his back to the door.With Wiley's knowledge, Detective Bosco started the video and audio recording machines.Detective Bosco informed Wiley that he was not under arrest and was free to leave the interview room at any point.The door was closed, the detective explained, for their “privacy.”The detective did not advise Wiley of his Miranda rights at any point before or during the interview.

[¶ 5] Detective Bosco informed Wiley that his investigation was complete: he knew that Wiley had molested the victim.Wiley denied having had any sexual contact with the victim.Shortly after the interview began, Wiley, who was a public school teacher, became extremely emotional and began making statements such as “my life is over now” and “this is my life you're holding.”Wiley sobbed at times and eventually slid to the floor of the room in a fetal position while the questioning continued.Approximately forty minutes into the interview, Wiley raised the prospect of being sent to jail, and the detective continued to urge Wiley to describe what he had done.Detective Bosco informed Wiley that he had two options: he could “own up” to his mistake and serve “a little bit of jail time” in county jail followed by probation, thus preserving his relationship with his son, or he could refuse to disclose the sexual contact with the victim and serve a sentence in state prison.The detective further urged Wiley to confess in order to prevent putting his family through a public proceeding.

[¶ 6] At one point, Wiley asked the detective, “Do I need a lawyer or anything?”Detective Bosco replied, “That's your choice, I can't make that decision for you.”Wiley did not address the lawyer issue further or suggest that he wanted to terminate the interview.He made a statement of concern for his family, and the interview continued.

[¶ 7] Nearly two hours into the interview, while exhibiting a calmer demeanor, Wiley described certain sexual contacts he had with the victim, but would not admit to penile penetration.Because Detective Bosco did not believe that Wiley was fully cooperating, he stated that he would terminate the interview.Wiley responded that he was trying to help the detective.The interview continued.

[¶ 8] Ultimately, Wiley admitted to all of the victim's allegations except penile penetration.At some points, Wiley admitted to or described certain acts with the victim.At other times, when asked about allegations made by the victim he responded with “whatever [she] says” or similar statements.

[¶ 9] Wiley was placed under arrest shortly after the conclusion of the interview.At the jail, Wiley asked Detective Bosco about a potential second victim, whom the detective had mentioned early in the interview.Detective Bosco read Wiley his Miranda rights, which Wiley affirmatively waived, orally.Wiley stated that he would admit to everything that he had previously admitted to, but would not admit to doing anything to the second potential victim.

[¶ 10] Wiley was charged in an eleven-count indictment including two counts of unlawful sexual contact (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(E); eight counts of unlawful sexual contact with penetration (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(F); and one count of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17–A M.R.S. § 253(1)(B)(2012).Wiley pleaded not guilty to all the counts of the indictment.

[¶ 11] Wiley filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the detective on April 15, 2009.Wiley asserted that his statements made prior to his arrest were in violation of his Miranda rights, and that those statements were involuntary.After a hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress.The court found that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the State had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Wiley was not in custody during the interrogation, and therefore Miranda warnings were not required.In addition, the court found that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements Wiley made both before and after his arrest were voluntary.

[¶ 12] Wiley's three-day jury trial began on April 25, 2011.During the trial, the victim described instances of Wiley touching her genitals with his hand, making her masturbate him, and digitally penetrating her vagina.When Wiley attempted to penetrate her vagina with his penis, approximately six months after the initial sexual contact, the victim told him to stop and threatened to tell her mother.After this incident, there was no further sexual contact between Wiley and the victim.The State offered the video and audio recordings of Wiley's interview with the detective, which the court admitted in evidence.The jury found Wiley guilty of seven counts of unlawful sexual contact without penetration (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(E), ¹ and three counts of unlawful sexual contact with penetration (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 255–A(1)(F).²The jury found Wiley not guilty of the one count of gross sexual assault.Wiley was sentenced to fifteen years at the Department of Corrections with all but three years suspended, and six years of probation.

II.LEGAL ANALYSIS

[¶ 13] Wiley contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because (A)he was subjected to custodial interrogation during his interview with Detective Bosco, but had not been advised of his Miranda rights, and (B) his statements were involuntary.³

A.Custodial Interrogation

[¶ 14] Wiley argues that his statements from the interview, given without Miranda warnings, should be suppressed because he was the subject of a custodial interrogation.“We review the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to issues of law.”State v. Dodge,2011 ME 47, ¶ 10, 17 A.3d 128(quotation marks omitted).We discern no error in the court's factual findings, nor in its legal conclusion based on a preponderance of the evidence that Wiley was not in custody for purposes of the Miranda requirements.⁴Seeid.

B. Voluntariness of Statements

[¶ 15] A confession is admissible in evidence only if it was given voluntarily, and the State has the burden to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. McCarthy,2003 ME 40, ¶ 12, 819 A.2d 335.Wiley contends that his statements to the detective prior to and after arrest were involuntary because he made the statements while under severe emotional distress; the detective induced his statements by making offers of leniency; and the detective induced his statements with threats of what his family would have to endure if he did not admit to his sexual abuse of the victim.We review for clear error the court's determination of whether Wiley's confession was voluntary, because it is primarily a question of fact and the trial court“has observed the witnesses and weighed their credibility.”Id.¶ 11.The court's application of the law to the factual findings is reviewed de novo.Id.

[¶ 16]“The voluntariness requirement gives effect to three overlapping but conceptually distinct values: (1) it discourages objectionable police practices; (2) it protects the mental freedom of the individual; and (3) it preserves a quality of fundamental fairness in the criminal justice system.”State v. Sawyer,2001 ME 88, ¶ 8, 772 A.2d 1173(quotation marks omitted).The standard for determining the voluntariness of a confession that we have applied for the past thirty years was first stated in State v. Mikulewicz:“A confession is voluntary if it results from the free...