Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Goodhue

Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec

April 1, 2019

State of Maine
v.
Calvin J. Goodhue

          ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT

          RAE ANN FRENCH JUDGE.

         A hearing was held on March 21, 2019 on Defendant's Motion to Suppress, dated February 16, 2018. Defendant argued that the State had not established that his client consented to a blood draw. The State asserted that Defendant had consented to a blood draw both verbally and in writing, so there was no need to obtain a search warrant. The State waived the argument of exigent circumstances.

         The court ruled that the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had consented to a blood draw. Defendant Calvin J. Goodhue, through counsel, asks this court to reconsider and make further findings related to its order denying Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant asks for an analysis of voluntariness of his consent to take a blood test.

         In State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47 J 11 and 12, 17 A.3d at 128, the Law Court stated:

If a criminal defendant challenges the voluntariness of a confession, a court must determine if the confession resulted from the "free choice of a rational mind," was "not a product of coercive police conduct," and "if under all of the circumstances its admission would be fundamentally fair." Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d at 501; see State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ¶ 24, 993 A.3d 1104, 1109-10; State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, J10, 704 A.2d 387, 390-91. This assessment of voluntariness is based on the totality of the circumstances, and includes both external and internal factors, such as: the details of the interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location of the interrogation; whether the interrogation was custodial; the recitation of Miranda warnings; the number of officers involved; the persistence of the officers; police trickery; threats, promises or inducements made to the defendant; and the defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional stability, and conduct. State v. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶9, 772 A.2d 1173, 1176. For instance, statements made in response to threats, see Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶12, 704 A.2d at 391, or in response to police promises of leniency, see State v. McCarthy, 2003 ME 40, 5 ¶12-13, 819 A.2d 335, 340, may be determined to be involuntary.

         Based all the evidence presented at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress, this court finds as follows:

         FACTS:

         Officer Ryan Dinsmore of Waterville Police Department testified at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress. Officer Dinsmore is a graduate of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and has had twelve years of experience in law enforcement. Officer Dinsmore was the only witness called to testify at the hearing on the Motion to Suppress. The court found his testimony credible.

         Defendant was not present during the hearing.

         At approximately 1 a.m. on January 11, 2017, Officer Dinsmore was dispatched to the scene of an accident in Waterville where a truck had reportedly rolled over into a snow bank. When he arrived at the scene of the accident, the Officer saw Defendant Calvin J. Goodhue walking around staggering. Ambulance personnel were asking Defendant about his injuries and Officer Dinsmore overheard the Defendant admit to the EMT's that Defendant was the operator of the vehicle and that he had consumed approximately 12 beers.

         The Officer observed that Defendant's eyes were glassy and watery and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant had a gash on his head and some other small superficial cuts on his hands and face. Despite his injuries, Defendant was responsive and answered all the EMT's questions appropriately. The Officer had probable cause to believe Defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

         Defendant was taken to Thayer Hospital by the EMT's. Officer Dinsmore followed the ambulance to the hospital and arrived at the same time as the ambulance. The Officer entered the hospital with the ambulance personnel and the Defendant.

         At the hospital, Defendant was taken to a room in the emergency area and Officer Dinsmore was permitted by the hospital staff to be present and have a conversation with Defendant. Officer Dinsmore was the only Officer present at the hospital.

         The hospital personnel worked on Defendant's cuts while the Officer was in the room. During treatment, the Defendant was conscious. The Officer did not see any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.