State of Maine v. Karl v. Kittredge
2014 ME 90
Me.2014Background
- Kittredge, on probation from prior burglary/theft convictions, installed a friend’s safe and was later accused of taking it and items (including oxycodone and jewelry) worth over $1,000.
- After the victim discovered the missing safe and removed surveillance tape, police investigated; Kittredge was charged with burglary and theft.
- Kittredge was asked by his probation officer to report to the probation office; two uniformed, armed state troopers interviewed him there in an unlocked room for ~45–60 minutes, told him he was not under arrest, and did not give Miranda warnings.
- During questioning the troopers suggested cooperation might help with the district attorney; Kittredge made incriminating admissions and later left the office unarrested.
- Trial court denied Kittredge’s motion to suppress (ruling he was not in custody and his statements were voluntary), the jury convicted him of theft (burglary acquittal), and the court merged theft counts and sentenced him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kittredge was in custody (requiring Miranda warnings) | State: interview was noncustodial because troopers said he was not under arrest, he was not physically restrained, in a familiar building, and left after questioning | Kittredge: being summoned by probation officer and interviewed by two armed troopers at probation office created custodial pressure requiring Miranda | Not custody — totality of factors supports trial court: probation summons alone and other facts insufficient to make a reasonable person feel they could not leave; Miranda not required |
| Whether statements were voluntary (independent of Miranda) | State: statements were voluntary; officers made no threats, no coercive promises, only vague suggestion cooperation might help DA | Kittredge: suggestion about helping the DA rendered confession involuntary/promise of leniency | Voluntary — State proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt; vague suggestion of benefit not an impermissible promise of leniency |
| Whether jury could be instructed on receiving stolen property though not charged | State: 17-A M.R.S. §351 permits proving theft by any manner in the chapter; instruction as lesser/alternative was appropriate | Kittredge: lacked fair notice/surprised by uncharged theory | Instruction allowed — statute authorizes proving theft by alternative manners; no election required and court may ensure fair trial (no undue prejudice shown) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft conviction | State: evidence (admissions, witness, pawning records, value) supports theft and receiving elements beyond reasonable doubt | Kittredge: evidence insufficient to prove unauthorized taking/knowledge or intent to deprive | Sufficient — viewed in light most favorable to State, evidence supported elements of theft and receiving stolen property |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (probationer summoned by probation officer not necessarily in custody; questioning by PO does not alone trigger Miranda)
- State v. Lowe, 81 A.3d 360 (Me. 2013) (custody determination factors; mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Ormsby, 81 A.3d 336 (Me. 2013) (standard for reviewing suppression denials and custody analysis)
- State v. Nadeau, 1 A.3d 445 (Me. 2010) (Miranda applies to custodial interrogation; discussion of voluntariness)