State of Maine v. Philip Fleming, 239 A.3d 648

Background

Philip Fleming (Black) was arrested for domestic assault and brought to Oxford County Jail; during intake officers asked standard questions and warned that bringing contraband into the jail is a Class C offense.
After a pat-down and during a strip search, a corrections officer observed a plastic bag wrapped around Fleming’s penis; Fleming spontaneously said, “That’s not mine, I don’t know how that got there,” then said it belonged to “the girl” who was trying to set him up. No Miranda warnings were given.
Fleming was indicted on counts including trafficking in prison contraband (17-A §757(1)(B)) and unlawful possession of a scheduled drug; trial resulted in convictions on trafficking and possession and a concurrent sentence.
Before trial Fleming requested an eleven-question race-focused voir dire; the court used a four-question yes/no questionnaire that did not ask whether jurors held negative opinions about African Americans and removed jurors who answered certain questions affirmatively.
The trial court granted Fleming’s suppression motion as to his initial answer to the intake question but denied suppression of the strip-search exchange, finding the initial remark was a spontaneous volunteered statement and the officer’s follow-up was clarification.
On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and remanded, holding the voir dire insufficient to probe racial bias and that the officer’s follow-up question was custodial interrogation under Miranda and its admission was not harmless with respect to the trafficking charge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fleming)	Held
Sufficiency of race-related voir dire	Court’s four yes/no questions were adequate; no abuse of discretion	Requested specific questions about negative opinions of African Americans were necessary to uncover bias	Questionnaire was insufficient; courts must inquire about negative views of the defendant’s race and allow follow-up voir dire; vacated convictions
Suppression — was the officer’s follow-up question custodial interrogation under Miranda?	Follow-up question was a neutral clarification of a volunteered statement, not interrogation	Officer’s question (“whose it may be”) was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and thus required Miranda warnings	Follow-up question was custodial interrogation; trial court erred in admitting the response; error not harmless for trafficking count
Interpretation of intent required by 17-A §757(1)(B) (trafficking in prison contraband)	State argued intent to possess contraband generally suffices if possession coincides with official custody	Fleming argued intent must be to possess contraband while in official custody (i.e., formed with awareness of impending custody)	Court construed statute to require intent to possess while in official custody; no evidence Fleming formed that intent—contributes to non-harmless error

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation/Miranda rule)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (impermissible race-based juror exclusions)
Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (no presumption of juror bias absent substantial indications)
State v. Turner, 495 A.2d 1211 (Me. 1985) (voir dire on race-related prejudice insufficient only when substantial indications exist)
State v. Bethea, 221 A.3d 563 (Me. 2019) (trial court probed racial bias adequately where questionnaire included direct race question and permitted follow-up)
State v. Dominique, 960 A.2d 1160 (Me. 2008) (follow-up clarification question to volunteered remark not interrogation)
Andersen v. Thieret, 903 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1990) (officer’s neutral "Who?" to volunteered confession did not require Miranda)
State v. Reese, 991 A.2d 806 (Me. 2010) (brief neutral questions not constituting interrogation)
State v. Larsen, 65 A.3d 1203 (Me. 2013) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)