Opinion
CD-CR-20-903
04-14-2021
STATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. HAMILTON, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING SUPPRESSION
Valerie Stanfill Justice
This matter came before the court for hearing on April 12, 2021 on Defendant's motion to suppress his statements from use as evidence at trial. The State was represented by ADA Neil MacLean. Defendant was present with his attorney, George Hess, Esq. After hearing and upon consideration of the evidence, the court finds and orders as follows.
On April 13, 2020, Lewiston Police Department Detective Thomas Murphy was driving on Pine Street when he saw a person, who turned out to be Defendant, approach another man with a cane, grab at his waist area, and appear to take something from his pocket. The two began to struggle. Detective Murphy pulled over and identified himself as a police officer. The man with the cane, Mr. Greeley, accused Defendant of robbing him.
Detective Murphy arrested Defendant and had him sit in his vehicle while he waited for back up. Another officer transported Defendant to the station. Detective Murphy did not ask Defendant any questions up to this point.
At the Lewiston Police Department, Detective Murphy entered an interview room where Defendant was seated. He told Defendant he was going to read his Miranda rights and asked Defendant to say "yes" if he understood, and to let the officer know if he did not understand. Defendant responded in the affirmative each time the officer asked if he understood. The officer then asked if he wished to waive his rights and talk with him. After Defendant asked if he was under arrest and what the charges were, the officer again asked if he understood and wanted to talk. Defendant responded "absolutely", that lie wanted to talk, and proceeded to explain his side of the story, When a person is in custody, the State has the burden to prove that any statements were obtained after a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights. E.g. State v. Hopkins, 2018 ME 100, ¶ 39, 189 A.3d 741, 753. A valid waiver amounts to an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. Id.
In this case, Mr. Hamilton was in custody when he made incriminating statements. He had been read his Miranda rights, had indicated that he understood after each point, and asked the officer questions about his status. Defendant and Detective Murphy knew each other by name through prior encounters; this was not Defendant's first time being questioned. When the officer asked a second time if Defendant understood his rights and wished to talk to him, Defendant responded "absolutely" and proceeded to explain what happened. In fact, Defendant did not even wait for a question to explain; he just started talking.
Given all of the circumstances, the court is easily persuaded that Defendant knowingly, Intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, that his statements were voluntary, and that Defendant's statements are admissible at trial, This Order Denying Suppression may be incorporated on the docket of the case by reference.