State v. Barron, 16 A.3d 620

Background

Defendant was charged with disorderly conduct and probation violation following a July 5, 2007 domestic incident and was later assigned a public defender on July 8.
On July 11, 2007, a detective questioned defendant at the jail without Miranda warnings or a waiver, as part of an investigation into his wife and alleged sexual activity with A.M.; ten-minute portion was recorded.
Defendant provided a written affidavit reciting his wife’s sexual relationship with A.M. and claimed threats of retaliation if he spoke out.
A.M. and defendant’s wife were interviewed by the detective; A.M. later disclosed sexual contact with both defendant and his wife after August 1, 2007.
An August 2, 2007 interview of defendant by the detective—in a casual setting with a hidden recorder—yielded admissions of threesomes and sexual activity with A.M.
Defendant was charged by information on August 6/7, 2007 with two counts of sexual assault on a minor; trials proceeded with motions to suppress Miranda and counsel violations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether July 11 Miranda warning was required and violated	Barron was interrogated in custody about matters connected to his charges, triggering Miranda.	July 11 questioning occurred in a wholly separate matter and officer lacked custody; no Miranda duty.	Miranda violated on July 11; but August 2 confession not fruit of that violation.
Whether August 2 interview violated Miranda	Interviews followed a free, voluntary encounter; Miranda not required.	Even voluntary, the context after a prior Miranda issue taints admissibility.	No Miranda violation on August 2; interview was non-custodial.
Whether July 11 interview violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel	Counsel should have been present as the questioning concerned charged offenses.	Counsel not required in that context because of the nature of the proceedings.	July 11 interview violated Sixth Amendment rights; but not dispositive for August 2 confession.
Whether August 2 confession was fruit of the July 11 Sixth Amendment violation	August 2 confession derived from tainted July 11 interrogation.	Independent causal chain breaks connection; attenuated taint.	August 2 confession not fruit of July 11 violation; admissible under attenuated-causation analysis.
Whether habitual offender conviction based on decriminalized conduct is valid	Prior 1989 conviction for sexual assault remains valid for habitual offender status despite later decriminalization.	Saving clause (1 V.S.A. § 214(c)) should bar use of decriminalized conviction for sentencing.	Saving clause does not apply; 1989 conviction still supports habitual offender status; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings and waiver)
State v. Delaoz, 2010 VT 65 (Vt. 2010) (Miranda applicability; custody and interrogation analysis)
State v. Sole, 2009 VT 24 (Vt. 2009) (Miranda applicability and custody standards in Vermont)
State v. Beer, 2004 VT 99 (Vt. 2004) (Miranda express questioning and custody implications (overruled on other grounds))
State v. Peterson, 2007 VT 24 (Vt. 2007) (fruit of the poisonous tree under Vermont Constitution; attenuation and independent source analysis)
State v. Badger, 141 Vt. 430 (Vt. 1982) (causal chain and attenuated taint in Miranda/waiver context)
Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (Sixth Amendment rights and uncharged but related offenses; offense-specific reasoning)
O'Bremski, 70 Wash.2d 425 (Wash. 1967) (independent source considerations in taint analysis)