Opinion ID: 6357541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Hopkins's Statements Were Voluntary

Text: [¶ 43] When a voluntariness issue is raised, the State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement was voluntary. State v. Kittredge , 2014 ME 90 , ¶ 24, 97 A.3d 106 . We review the court's factual findings regarding voluntariness for clear error and its ultimate determination regarding voluntariness de novo. State v. Hunt , 2016 ME 172 , ¶¶ 16-19, 151 A.3d 911 ; State v. Bryant , 2014 ME 94 , ¶ 15, 97 A.3d 595 . [¶ 44] To determine whether a statement was voluntary, we consider the totality of the circumstances and consider factors such as: the details of the interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location of the interrogation; whether the interrogation was custodial; the recitation of Miranda warnings; the number of officers involved; the persistence of the officers; police trickery; threats, promises or inducements made to the defendant; and the defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional stability, and conduct. State v. Sawyer , 2001 ME 88 , ¶ 9, 772 A.2d 1173 . [¶ 45] Here, the totality of the circumstances supports the conclusion that Hopkins's statements to law enforcement officers during the five challenged interviews were voluntary. The questioning that occurred throughout the five interviews was nonconfrontational and most of the interviews took place in Hopkins's home, with the exception of the interview with the detective that occurred in his police cruiser in front of Hopkins's home. Although Hopkins was crying at times during the interviews, Hopkins was coherent and understandable during the interviews. There was no evidence that any of the law enforcement officers coerced or tricked Hopkins to get her to talk. The court did not err in finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hopkins's statements during all five interviews were voluntary.