Opinion ID: 2385362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Statements Made in Absence of Miranda Warnings

Text: At trial defendant's counsel made an ongoing objection to the testimony of Chief Ronald Perron of the Somersworth, New Hampshire, police department regarding a conversation between Chief Perron and defendant Longley on the morning after the accident. Longley now claims that the conversation is inadmissible because Chief Perron had not first read him the Miranda warnings. At trial Chief Perron testified about the conversation as follows: When he approached me [at a softball game] he said, Could I see you in private for a minute? I said sure. We walked up towards the tennis courts which is about 50 yards away from where I was seated and I said, What's the problem? And he said, I'd like to talk to you about the incident that happened last night over in Berwick involving the police officer. I said, What about it? He said, I think I may have been involved in that. I said, What do you think? He said, We had been partying that night, I was feeling pretty good. I said, What happened? He said, I was out on Route 9 and I drove by where I saw some people on the side of the road. He said, And we felt an impact on the car and I drove down the road a little ways and I stopped. I looked back to see if there was anything going on, if anybody was going to come after, and nobody came so I left. I said, What do you want to do about that now? He said, I want to do the right thing, whatever is the right thing to do. I said, The right thing to do is go to Berwick police and tell them the whole story. He said, Okay. That's what I want to do. I said, Do you have a car? He said, no and I said, Would you like me to take you down? He said, yes. I explained to him he didn't have to go if he [didn't want] to, if he didn't I would probably have to arrest him. He said, No, I want to go do the right thing. The warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), must be given only when police engage in custodial interrogation. The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance that the Miranda warnings were not required, State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d 844, 850 (Me.1981); but the trial court's ruling will be upheld if the record provides rational support for [its] determination. State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d 1349, 1358 (Me.1981). In the case at bar, the trial justice had ample support for his finding that Longley, when he made his statements to the Somersworth police chief, was subjected to neither police custody nor police interrogation. Therefore, Miranda did not apply. A person is in custody for the purposes of Miranda only when he is deprived of his freedom in some significant way, or would be led, as a reasonable person, to believe he was not free to leave the presence of the police. State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d at 1358. At the time Longley voluntarily initiated the conversation in a public park, he was not a suspect of police investigation, nor was he restrained in a police-dominated atmosphere. See id.; see also State v. Cochran, 425 A.2d 999, 1002 (Me. 1981) (court can consider absence of police coercion, the defendant's cooperation, who initiated the contact, intent of the parties involved, and probable cause to arrest). Chief Perron did not mention the possibility of restraint until Longley had told the story of the collision. Interrogations must be distinguished from general investigations. State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d at 849. Evidence from the latter is admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings and include neutral impersonal requests for information and follow-up questions ... for the purpose of clarifying [an] ambiguous situation. Id. at 849. The questions posed by Chief Perron in this case were neutral requests for information and attempts to clarify ambiguous responses: What about it?; What do you think?; What happened?; and What do you want to do about that now? do not constitute a police interrogation as defendant claims. The trial justice was warranted in concluding that Chief Perron did not engage in interrogation of Longley in a Miranda sense. The trial court did not err in allowing testimony about Longley's statements.