STATE v. LONGLEY
11/1/1984
e theory that the impact of the event produces an utterance that is `spontaneous and unreflecting'." State v. Walton, 432 A.2d at 1277 (quoting State v. Ellis, 297 A.2d 91, 93-94 (Me. 1972)).
Although Elizabeth Reid had consumed a significant amount of beer on September 11, 1982, and had been arguing with her brother, whatever stress she had suffered earlier that day was dwarfed by the events after 9:00 p.m. As she stood only a foot or two from Officer Gallant, a vehicle traveling at least 40 m.p.h. headed toward the pair. Reid saw the lights of the approaching auto. She saw the vehicle strike and kill Gallant. Reid was herself hit, either by the car or by Gallant's flying body. She received serious bruises on her leg, and her nose was broken in six places. Reid testified, and the officers to whom she made the statements agreed, that after the accident she was "hysterical."
It was not clearly erroneous for the trial justice to conclude that Reid's statements were spontaneous and unreflecting and that they came within the excited utterances exception to the hearsay rule.
II. Defendant's Statements Made in Absence of Miranda Warnings
At trial defendant's counsel made an ongoing objection to the testimony of Chief Ronald Perron of the Somersworth, New Hampshire, police department regarding a conversation between Chief Perron and defendant Longley on the morning after the accident. Longley now claims that the conversation is inadmissible because Chief Perron had not first read him the Miranda warnings. At trial Chief Perron testified about the conversation as follows:
When he approached me [at a softball game] he said, "Could I
see you in private for a minute?"
I said "sure." We walked up towards the tennis courts which is
about 50 yards away from where I was seated and I said, "What's
the problem?"
And he said, "I'd like to talk to you about the incident that
happened last night over in Berwick involving the police
officer."
I said, "What about it?"
He said, "I think I may have been involved in that."
I said, "What do you think?"
He said, "We had been partying that night, I was feeling pretty
good."
I said, "What happened?"
He said, "I was out on Route 9 and I drove by where I saw some
people on the side of the road." He said, "And we felt an
impact on the car and I drove down the road a little ways and I
stopped. I looked back to see if there was anything going on,
if anybody was going to come after, and nobody came so I left."
I said, "What do you want to do about that now?"
He said, "I want to do the right thing, whatever is the right
thing to do."
I said, "The right thing to do is go to Berwick police and tell
them the whole story."
He said, "Okay. That's what I want to do."
I said, "Do you have a car?"
He said, "no" and I said, "Would you like me to take you down?
He said, "yes." I explained to him he didn't have to go if he
[didn't want] to, if he didn't I would probably have to arrest
him.
He said, "No, I want to go do the right thing."
The warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), must be given only
"A person is in custody for the purposes of Miranda only when he is deprived of his freedom in some significant way, or would be led, as a reasonable person, to believe he was not free to leave the presence of the police." State v. Bleyl, 435 A.2d at 1358. At the time L
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maine DUI Attorneys