Case Title: State v. Beckley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 91-018


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

Paul M. Beckley                              September Term, 1991


Paul F. Hudson, J.

Matthew E.C. Pifer and Theresa St. Helaire, Bennington County Deputy State's
  Attorneys, Bennington, for plaintiff-appellant

Mark R. Butterfield of Candon and Butterfield, Rutland, for defendant-
  appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   The State brings this interlocutory appeal from an order
of the Bennington District Court suppressing the confession of the
defendant-appellee, Paul M. Beckley, to a number of burglaries.  The
question certified for our review is as follows:

          On a totality of the circumstances did the trial court's
          determination that among other things the interrogating
          officer's promise to inform the State's Attorney about
          the defendant's cooperation rendered the defendant's
          subsequent confession involuntary?

We answer the question in the negative with respect to the oral confession
given by defendant, but further conclude that the fact-finding was in-
sufficient to answer the question with respect to his written confession,
and remand.
     The following facts were found by the trial court:  A Manchester police
officer investigating a number of apparently related burglaries suspected
defendant's involvement.  He left a message with defendant's employer, and a
note in defendant's car, requesting that defendant come down to the police
station to discuss the burglaries.  The note read that "[i]t would be in
[defendant's] best interest to come in . . . ."
     Defendant did go to the police station, where first the officer read
him his Miranda rights.  Defendant indicated he was willing to speak without
an attorney present and signed a written Miranda waiver.  The officer then
told defendant that he would convey defendant's cooperativeness to the
State's Attorney.  In the interrogation that followed, defendant first
denied any wrongdoing, but ultimately admitted committing a number of
offenses, including the burglaries being investigated.  Defendant was then
told by the officer that if defendant's information was "good," the officer
would lodge against him only three of six chargeable offenses, and not ask
the State's Attorney to press for jail time.  Subsequent to these remarks by
the officer, defendant signed a statement that had been typed up from notes
taken by the officer during defendant's oral confession.
     The State argues, first, that the court's findings of fact were
erroneous because the officer did not tell defendant that he would convey
defendant's cooperativeness to the State's Attorney until after defendant
began his oral confession.  We are generally reluctant to resolve challenges
to courts' pretrial fact-finding in interlocutory appeals because of the
possibility that positions on relevant facts will change at trial.  See
State v. Dubois, 150 Vt. 600, 603,