Title: State v. Pontbriand

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Pontbriand (2003-537); 178 Vt. 120; 878 A.2d 227

2005 VT  20

[Filed 18-Feb-2005]

       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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2005 VT  20

                                No. 2003-537

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

  Shawn Pontbriand	                         June Term, 2004

  Ben W. Joseph, J.

  Robert Simpson, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
    Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney,
    Montpelier, for  Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., (FN1) Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ., and
            C.J. Allen (Ret.), (FN2) Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   The State appeals a trial court order
  suppressing statements defendant Shawn Pontbriand made to law enforcement
  officers before his arrest.  The trial court found that Pontbriand was in
  police custody at the time the statements were made, and that the officers
  improperly reinitiated questioning after Pontbriand invoked his right to
  counsel.  We reverse.

       ¶  2.  In early May 2002, the Chittenden Unit for Special
  Investigations began investigating Pontbriand's relationship with the minor
  daughters of his girlfriend, T.N.  During this investigation, T.N.
  contacted the police after Pontbriand sent her an e-mail in which he
  admitted to having an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of the
  girls.  The following day, Pontbriand collapsed and was transported to
  Fletcher Allen Hospital, where he was diagnosed initially with dehydration
  and later with cancer.  

       ¶  3.  State Police Corporal James Claremont and Detective Sergeant
  Jennifer Morrison of the Burlington Police Department came to Fletcher
  Allen to interview Pontbriand the morning he was hospitalized.  When they
  arrived, he was in bed and a medical technician was performing diagnostic
  tests on him.  After the technician left the room, they introduced
  themselves as detectives who investigate sexual offenses.  They brought a
  printed copy of the incriminating e-mail Pontbriand had sent to his
  girlfriend and held the copy so that Pontbriand could see it.  Corporal
  Claremont told Pontbriand they were sure he knew why they had come.  At
  that point, Pontbriand indicated that he wanted to talk to a lawyer.

       ¶  4.  Detective Sergeant Morrison testified that she immediately
  replied by saying that they would respect that, but explained to Pontbriand
  that this was his opportunity to tell his side of the story and that they
  were not going to come back again.
   
       ¶  5.  At the suppression hearing, the State submitted a compact
  disc recording of the hospital conversation, on which Pontbriand is heard
  to say he wanted to take care of the problem, and that he wanted to solve
  it.  Corporal Claremont repeated that he was not under arrest, and that he
  did not have to talk to them.  After more conversation in which Pontbriand
  stated that he did not want to run from the problem, Detective Sergeant
  Morrison again told him that his cooperation had to be voluntary if they
  were going to continue talking, and that they would not force him to talk. 
  Both officers made clear that they could not promise not to arrest him.  

       ¶  6.  The trial court found that Pontbriand informed the
  investigating officers "he wanted to talk to them and that he would do so
  without speaking to a lawyer."  

       ¶  7.  Corporal Claremont then began to ask him questions about the
  alleged abuse, and Pontbriand made incriminating statements in response. 
  At the close of the interview, the investigating officers informed him that
  he was under arrest.  Based on his statements and other evidence,
  Pontbriand was charged with aggravated sexual assault and lewd and
  lascivious conduct with a child.  

       ¶  8.  Pontbriand moved to suppress the statements he made to police,
  alleging (1) that he was in police custody at the time of questioning and
  that the investigating officers were therefore barred from reinitiating
  interrogation after he requested a lawyer, and (2) that his statements were
  coerced and therefore inadmissible.  The trial court granted his motion to
  suppress, concluding that Pontbriand was in custody for purposes of
  Miranda, that the police failed to give the warnings required by Miranda,
  and, therefore, that any statements Pontbriand made could not be used as
  evidence against him at trial.  The State then filed this interlocutory
  appeal.  

       ¶  9.  On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred when
  it found that Pontbriand was in police custody at the time of questioning,
  rendering his statements inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona,