 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. BUZZELL12/14/1992
ecording (1) provides an objective record and avoids the situation in which a police officer rehearses a statement with a suspect before recording it, (2) aids police by demonstrating they have not used improper tactics during questioning, and (3) conserves judicial resources by reducing the need for the "swearing contests" that often occur at suppression hearings.
While there are obvious benefits to be realized when statements are recorded, Buzzell has not persuaded us that recording is essential to ensure a fair trial, or that the due process clause of our state constitution requires electronic recording of custodial interrogation. Therefore,
Buzzell's statements to Detective Young, voluntarily made after Miranda warnings were given, were properly admitted into evidence.
II.
Buzzell next asserts that some of Detective Young's testimony during the trial violated the rule of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), because it related to Buzzell's invocation of his right to counsel. In Doyle, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant's silence following the giving of Miranda warnings (which include advising a suspect of his right to counsel) may not be used against him at trial. 426 U.S. at 619, 96 S.Ct. at 2245.
In response to Buzzell's motion in limine, the State agreed prior to trial that there would be no mention of Buzzell's request to first speak with an attorney when asked by Detective Young if he was willing to make a videotaped statement. Despite this agreement, the State elicited some information from Detective Young on direct and redirect examination concerning the request to videotape the interview. Buzzell argues that this testimony prejudiced him and requires vacating his conviction. We disagree.
The jury learned from Detective Young that at the end of the interview he had asked Buzzell to make a videotaped statement and that Buzzell had declined the invitation and stopped the interview. It was clear the request came at the end of the interview, after Buzzell had made incriminating statements. Although the jury was not given an explanation of why no videotape was made, they did learn that Buzzell had not actually refused the request. Moreover, they were never told that Buzzell had asked to speak with an attorney. Under these circumstances, we find no Doyle violation.
III.
Buzzell further argues that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the manslaughter charge.
The corpus delicti rule requires the State to establish to a probable cause standard that the victim died and that a criminal agency was responsible for the death. State v. Discher, 597 A.2d 1336, 1339 (Me. 1991). In order to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, the State must meet this burden without relying on any post-crime admissions of a defendant. Id. In this case the testimony of the medical examiner and the eyewitness testimony
Finally, the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985).
The entry is:
Judgments affirmed.
All concurring.
Page 1 2 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|