Opinion ID: 2372732
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntariness of the Defendant's Statements

Text: The State must establish the legal admissibility of a confession by the strict standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Collins, 297 A.2d 620, 627 (Me.1972). The trial justice must determine whether a statement is voluntary by considering the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Caouette, 446 A.2d 1120, 1124 (Me.1982). The trial court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence providing rational support for its conclusion. Id. (citations omitted). Adopting the values first articulated in Collins, we held in Caouette that in order to find a statement voluntary, it must first be established that it is the result of defendant's exercise of his own free will and rational intellect. Id. at 1123; see also State v. Hazelton, 330 A.2d 919, 924 (Me.1975) (Usual competency to waive rights viewed in terms of mental faculties and emotional and behavioral processes.). We are satisfied that the State has met its burden to establish the legal admissibility of the defendant's confession beyond a reasonable doubt. There is evidence in the record providing rational support for the motion justice to conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's statements were voluntary. Neither the police conduct nor the interrogation at the Portsmouth Police Department amounted to compulsion. The defendant concedes that he was neither threatened nor promised anything. Moreover, the evidence of drug and alcohol consumption does not compel the fact-finder to entertain a reasonable doubt that Franklin was capable of rational and voluntary action. The evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that, at least by approximately 9:00 a.m. on November 20, 1981, the defendant was rational and coherent. [5]