Court Opinion

ID: 9648396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:19:13.322559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:00.253944
License: Public Domain

DANA, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 17] I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the Court’s recognition of the propriety of a bifurcated approach to reviewing questions of the voluntariness of a confession and the waiver of the rights protected pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), I cannot, in these circumstances, join in the Court’s affirmance of the District Court’s finding that Coombs’ confession was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.
[¶ 18] The State bears the burden of proving a confession voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt before it can be admitted in evidence against the defendant. State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 908, 911 (Me.1995). The suppression court’s factual findings regarding voluntariness will be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary inference. See State v. Simmons, 435 A.2d 1090, 1093 (Me.1981). In my opinion, the totality of the circumstances, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, compels a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of Coombs’ confession.
[¶ 19] Coombs, while in custody after being arrested on a bench warrant for failure to pay a fine, was subjected to a three-hour interrogation regarding a completely unrelated offense, intermittently handcuffed, not allowed to make a phone call, and her request to be informed as to her bail on the outstanding fine went unheeded. She was crying, denying the theft charge, and expressing her fear of going to jail. Sergeant Carter could not even recall providing her with a glass of water, a tissue, or the use of the bathroom over the three-hour period, although he testified that she cried easily, was emotional, and needed breaks to gain her composure (during which he handcuffed her to a pole running through the interrogation room). Sergeant Carter admitted that he told Coombs that he would “in all probability be charging her with [possession of marijuana].” Coombs testified that Sergeant Carter said, “I could take two charges of theft and possession of marijuana or I could confess to the theft and he’d flush the marijuana.” It is undisputed that immediately after Coombs signed a confession to the theft of a sweater, Sergeant Carter *393flushed some quantity of marijuana down the toilet and ripped up an already completed summons for possession of the drug. He even made a point of inviting Coombs into the bathroom to watch. The State conceded at oral argument that this destruction of evidence was beyond the authority granted to the officer.5 At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Carter offered no explanation for his act of destroying evidence.
[¶20] The court did not find that no promise was made to Coombs.6 It did state that there had been “no promises which would give rise to a constitutional infirmity.” The Court’s reference to State v. Tardiff, 874 A.2d 598 (Me.1977) and its bright line rule that any promise renders a confession involuntary forces the Court to assume that the District Court found that no promise was made. See supra note 4. The Court’s reb-anee on Tardiff, which based its holding on Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897), fails to account for the Supreme Court’s recent limitation of Bram. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 285-86, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1251-52, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (recognizing that the current standard for determining the voluntariness of a confession is the totality of the circumstances test). The District Court may have concluded, incorrectly in my view, that despite a promise by Sergeant Carter, under the “totality of the circumstances” test Coombs’ confession was still voluntary.
[¶ 21] Sergeant Carter’s destruction of evidence immediately after obtaining Coombs’ confession, in the absence of any rational explanation for his action, is sufficient to compel a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of Coombs’ confession. I would therefore vacate the conviction.

. Maine law makes criminal the destruction of physical evidence that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, or conviction of a person accused of a crime. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 753(1)(C) (1983) (Hindering apprehension or prosecution). The Court correctly notes that possession of a usable amount of marijuana is a civil offense in Maine. See supra note 3. It is not clear from the record how much marijuana Sergeant Carter disposed of, however. Although he testified that he found a "very small quantity of marijuana," Coombs recalled that there "was quite a large amount” of marijuana, "probably ... half of a sandwich bag full.” Possession of more than one and a quarter ounces of marijuana gives rise to a presumption of guilt of the crime of unlawfully furnishing scheduled drugs. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1106(3)(A) (Supp.1997). In any event, Sergeant Carter’s unauthorized and highly irregular act of destroying evidence of either a civil or criminal offense raises serious doubts about the circumstances surrounding Coombs’ confession.

. The court also did not believe Sergeant Carter in all respects. For example, Sergeant Carter testified that after arriving at the store he approached Coombs’ car, tapped on the window, and asked the occupants to step out of the car and show identification. Coombs, on the other hand, did not recall Sergeant Carter tapping on the window and testified that he "opened up the doors and physically removed us from the car.” The court explicitly rejected Sergeant Carter’s version of the facts, finding that "Carter hauled the two suspects ... out of the car.”