 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. BUZZELL12/14/1992
Defendant Michael Buzzell appeals his convictions of manslaughter, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203(1)(A) (Supp. 1991), and robbery, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651(1)(C) (1983), following a jury trial in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Cole, J.). He contends that admissions he made to the police should have been suppressed because the due process clause of the Maine Constitution requires electronic recording of custodial interrogation. He further asserts that the admission of certain evidence violated his constitutional rights. Finally, he contends that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Finding no merit in any of Buzzell's contentions, we affirm the convictions.
This case arises out of the following facts. Thomas Ferenc died on a stairwell landing in a Portland apartment building following an evening of drinking and card playing with Buzzell and another individual, Wendell Price. Based on what Buzzell and Price told them at the scene, police initially believed that Ferenc, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.34, had accidentally fallen down the stairs after leaving Price's apartment. At a later date Price contacted the Portland police and told Detective Daniel Young that he and Buzzell had robbed Ferenc and that Buzzell had thrown Ferenc down the stairs. Young then asked Buzzell to come to the police station for questioning.
On his arrival, Young informed Buzzell that Ferenc's death was under investigation as a criminal matter and gave him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Buzzell agreed to answer questions and subsequently made a number of inculpatory admissions. After obtaining the admissions, Detective Young asked Buzzell if he would make a videotaped statement. Buzzell replied that he was not refusing the request but he wished to speak with an attorney first. Young then ended the interview.
Buzzell was indicted for manslaughter and robbery. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved in limine to exclude any evidence relating to the invocation of Buzzell's right to counsel during the interview with Detective Young. The State informed the trial court that it would make no mention of this and indicated that Detective Young understood he was to say nothing on the subject.
During its examination of Detective Young, the State asked whether a tape had been made of his interview with Buzzell. Young said no and stated that Buzzell had not wanted to do a taped interview. The defense then objected on the basis that this line of questioning was exactly what the motion in limine sought to avoid. The objection was overruled. Later, on redirect, the subject came up again. Detective Young never stated that Buzzell had asked to speak with an attorney, but he did say that Buzzell had asked for the interview to stop and that he had expected to have either a written or electronic statement before Buzzell left.
I.
Buzzell first contends that the due process clause of the Maine Constitution requires the electronic recording of custodial interrogation when feasible. He argues that the remedy for any unexcused failure to record should be suppression of the statements and asks us to suppress his statements to Detective Young. We are unpersuaded by the contention.
Buzzell relies in large part on Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156, 1159 (Alaska 1985), in which the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of its state constitution required the recording of custodial interrogation when feasible. He offers a number of reasons in support of a similar interpretation of the Maine Constitution. For example, he maintains that a r
Page 1 2 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|