 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Forsyth8/31/2004
Gerald Forsyth appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Somerset County, Jabar, J.) convicting him of operating a motor vehicle under the influence, 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411(1) (1996) (Class D). Forsyth asserts that the Superior Court erred when it allowed the arresting officer to testify to statements made by Forsyth, in violation of a suppression order. We agree and vacate the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[ 2] This is the second installment of this Forsyth saga. [FN1] Forsyth was arrested by a state police officer after being held in custody at a federal border inspection station in Sandy Bay Township. The details of the events leading up to the arrest are summarized in our opinion on the first appeal, State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, 795 A.2d 66. Following the arrest, Forsyth filed a motion seeking to suppress all the *165 oral statements made by him to the arresting officer, including the verbal components of the field sobriety tests, contending that they were made in response to custodial interrogation without a Miranda [FN2] warning. At the suppression hearing, Forsyth amended his motion to suppress all the field sobriety test results, all the observations made by the arresting officer during those tests, and the results of the blood-alcohol level test administered to Forsyth as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
FN1. See State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, 795 A.2d 66.
FN2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
[ 3] The District Court granted the motion in part by stating explicitly which statements were not subject to suppression and stating explicitly that all other statements were suppressed, including the verbal components of the field sobriety tests. The court also suppressed the blood-alcohol level test results, reasoning that without Forsyth's responses to the officer's questioning and without the verbal components of the field sobriety test there was insufficient probable cause to administer the test. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, 2-7, 795 A.2d at 67-69.
[ 4] The State appealed and we vacated the suppression order in part, allowing the State to introduce the blood-alcohol level test results in evidence at trial. The State did not contest that portion of the order suppressing Forsyth's statements and we did not disturb it. Id. 8, 795 A.2d at 69.
[ 5] Despite the District Court's suppression order, the Superior Court allowed, over objection, the arresting officer to testify at trial to some of the statements made by Forsyth which were the subject of the suppression order and not challenged on the final appeal. A jury found Forsyth guilty of operating under the influence.
II. DISCUSSION
[ 6] Forsyth contends that the Superior Court violated the District Court's suppression order by allowing the arresting officer to testify to suppressed statements made by Forsyth. The State contends that none of the suppressed statements were admitted at trial.
[ 7] A review of the transcript makes clear that the arresting officer did testify to statements suppressed by the District Court. In particular, the transcript reveals that, despite timely objections by Forsyth, the court allowed the following exchange between the prosecutor and the arresting officer in discussing the so-called walk and turn test:
Q. And did Mr. Forsyth tell you he had any physical impairments?
A. He said that there were none that would affect him in performing these tests.
The State argues that allowing the officer to testify to this statement made by Forsyth complied with the suppression order. The State asserts that the order suppressed the verbal portions of the walk and turn test and that Forsyth's response to the question posed by the officer was not a verbal portion of the test. The State c
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|