153 A.3d 551
Vt.2016Background
- Victim Melissa Jenkins disappeared March 25, 2012; her body was later found. Physical evidence (hat, business card, phone number) tied the scene to defendant Allen Prue and his wife Patricia.
- Police contacted the Prues, obtained consent searches and later used a ruse to bring them separately to the barracks for further questioning on March 27; the defendant was interrogated for about seven hours, admitted to strangling the victim, and led officers to locations related to the crime.
- Miranda warnings were given roughly two hours into the March 27 interview; defendant signed a written waiver after officers read the warnings aloud for him.
- Defense moved to suppress the confession (arguing waiver and voluntariness), sought to admit a psychiatrist’s (Dr. Kinsler) testimony diagnosing defendant’s wife with dissociative identity disorder (DID), and objected to admission of the wife’s prior internet search history; defendant also requested continuances at sentencing to secure witnesses.
- Trial court denied suppression, excluded Dr. Kinsler’s testimony as unfairly prejudicial and untimely, admitted the wife’s laptop internet searches, and denied continuances; the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miranda waiver (initial warnings) | State: waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances | Prue: low IQ, ruse to bring him in, awkward “swearing” ceremony and officers’ language (e.g., calling warnings "formalities") negated a valid waiver | Court: waiver valid; defendant understood warnings and context; findings supported by record |
| Need to re-administer Miranda warnings before confession (staleness) | State: interview was a cohesive, continuous interrogation so initial warnings remained effective | Prue: long interview and an hour gap between warnings and intensified questioning rendered warnings stale and required fresh advisement | Court: no fresh warnings required under totality; continuity of interrogation meant warnings remained valid |
| Voluntariness of confession | State: confession voluntary; no coercion or improper promises; defendant given breaks and repeated opportunities to stop | Prue: ruse, psychological tactics, low IQ, and implied leniency overbore will and rendered confession involuntary | Court: confession voluntary; no improper promises or coercion sufficient to overbear his will |
| Admission/exclusion of witnesses/evidence (Dr. Kinsler, internet searches, sentencing continuance) | State: exclude late, prejudicial psychiatric expert; admit wife’s searches as probative of conspiracy; oppose sentencing continuance | Prue: Kinsler’s DID diagnosis relevant to blame wife; searches irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; sentencing continuance necessary to obtain witnesses | Court: exclusion of Dr. Kinsler proper under Rule 403 and due to lateness; admission of internet searches within discretion as circumstantial evidence of conspiracy; denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (standards for knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (purpose of Miranda; waiver analysis)
- Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U.S. 42 (totality test for whether fresh Miranda warnings are required)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 ( Miranda compliance and voluntariness rare exceptions)
- State v. Brooks, 193 Vt. 461 (Vt. standard for Miranda waiver inquiry)
- State v. Bacon, 163 Vt. 279 (officer characterizations of Miranda warnings do not automatically invalidate waiver)
- State v. Malinowski, 148 Vt. 517 (State bears burden to prove waiver)
- United States v. Plugh, 648 F.3d 118 (consider background, experience, and conduct in waiver analysis)