State of Maine v. Kristina Lowe
2013 ME 92
Me.2013Background
- Eighteen-year-old Lowe was severely injured in a single-vehicle crash and hospitalized under medical care.
- A State Police trooper interviewed Lowe at the hospital without Miranda warnings, believing she was not in custody.
- During the interview, the trooper learned two backseat passengers had died and the front-seat passenger's identity; she later told Lowe these passengers died.
- A pause in questioning occurred after which Lowe was told the police believed Jake may have been the front-seat occupant and that she was the focus of the investigation.
- Lowe was indicted on multiple offenses; she moved to suppress statements as involuntary and obtained after custody without warnings; the trial court suppressed statements made after the pause, while finding earlier statements voluntary.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that Lowe’s statements were voluntary and that custody existed after the pause in questioning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lowe in custody during the interrogation after the five-minute break? | Lowe; custody arose only after the break | State; no custody until driver-identification occurred | Custody existed after the pause; warnings required after break |
| Were Lowe’s statements voluntary despite medical treatment and distress? | Lowe; medical condition undermines voluntariness | Lowe; statements voluntary notwithstanding sedation | Statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Did the failure to provide Miranda warnings before and after the break violate due process? | Lowe; warnings required after becoming a suspect | State; not in custody initially, warnings not required before break | Miranda warnings required after the break when custody ensued |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (test for custody focuses on perceived freedom to terminate interrogation in relevant context)
- State v. Jones, 2012 ME 126 (Me. 2012) (custody determined by totality of factors; de novo on custody decision)
- State v. Warrior, 277 P.3d 1111 (Kan. 2012) (custody requires more than focus of investigation; police conduct matters)
- State v. Stott, 794 A.2d 120 (N.J. 2002) (interrogation in secluded setting can create custody)
- Caouette, 446 A.2d 1120 (Me. 1982) (voluntariness depends on defendant’s free will and rational intellect)