Case Title: State v. Austin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-11-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-321
 
 
State of Vermont                             Supreme Court
 
     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Hermin E. Austin                             Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit
 
                                             November Term, 1989
 
 
Francis B. McCaffrey, J.
 
Kevin R. Klamm, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
plaintiff-appellant
 
Cortland Corsones of Corsones and Corsones, Rutland, for defendant-appellee
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ.
 
 
     GIBSON, J.   The State of Vermont appeals from a trial court grant of
defendant's motion to suppress statements made to the police about alleged
charges of sexual abuse, following a polygraph test.  We reverse and remand.
     Defendant was arrested on September 12, l988 on a charge of sexually
assaulting a child, in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(3).   Defendant filed a
motion to suppress certain incriminating statements made to the police
following a polygraph examination, asserting that he was not given his
Miranda rights, that the statements were either involuntary or not made by
him, and that, in any case, the statements resulted from coercion by the
police.
     At the hearing on the motion, the trial court found that Joseph Arduca,
chief of the Brandon police department, interviewed defendant on May 23,
l988 in connection with the complaint of sexual abuse.  The officer raised
the question of a polygraph test for defendant, and the trial court found:
            The officer then inquired of the Defendant as to
          whether or not he would submit to a polygraph.  He
          indicated to the Defendant that the victim would be
          taking a polygraph and based on that representation the
          Defendant agreed.
 
     A polygraph examination was scheduled for July 20, 1988, and Chief
Arduca brought defendant to the Rutland police barracks for the test.  The
trial court found that defendant had a serious hearing disability, which was
not substantially improved by hearing aids, and that he required corrective
glasses to see adequately.  The court further found that "[t]he officers are
not clear as to whether or not the Defendant had his hearing aid on at the
time the polygraph was commenced and during the polygraph exam, nor are they
sure whether or not he used his glasses."  In addition, the officer in
charge of the polygraph was not sure whether he had been aware that
defendant had a hearing disability and was not sure whether he had spoken
louder than usual to defendant to compensate for any hearing loss.
     The trial court found that the officer in charge of the test read
defendant his Miranda rights and had him sign a written waiver of those
rights.  The officer then proceeded to perform a pretest interview con-
cerning the areas the test would cover.  After the test was complete, Chief
Arduca joined the testing officer and defendant, and a conversation ensued,
during which defendant made statements that the alleged victim had "acted
inappropriately, had pinched him, and had taken a bath in his home."
Additional conversations followed, after which defendant executed a written
statement, which was the subject of the suppression motion.  The court
found that it was only in the post-test interview that defendant made the
admissions contained in his written statement.  The alleged victim was not
asked to take a polygraph test after defendant made his admissions.
     The trial court concluded that "[d]efendant was requested to submit to
a polygraph and was given the inducement that the victim would do likewise."
Noting that the alleged victim was never asked to take a polygraph test, the
court concluded that the effect on defendant was prejudicial.  Citing State
v. Comes, 144 Vt. 103, 108,