State v. Ernest Sabourin, 161 A.3d 1132

Background

Victim (believed by both to be defendant’s daughter; later DNA showed no relation) alleged two counts of first-degree sexual assault after an incident at defendant Ernest Sabourin’s apartment following heavy alcohol consumption.
Detectives in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle went to Sabourin’s apartment, knocked, and Sabourin made spontaneous incriminating statements; he signed a consent-to-search form and the detectives seized bedsheets.
Sabourin agreed to accompany police to the station, where he was Mirandized, initialed/ signed a rights form (but checked “no” on one line), and gave a written statement admitting conduct and apologizing.
Sabourin moved to suppress his apartment and stationhouse statements, arguing custodial interrogation without Miranda and an involuntary/invalid waiver; the hearing justice denied suppression, finding statements voluntary and waiver knowing.
After the state dismissed three counts pretrial, a jury convicted Sabourin on two counts of first-degree sexual assault; he was sentenced to 25 years concurrent and appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Sabourin's Argument	Held
Were statements made in the apartment subject to Miranda (custody + interrogation)?	Not custodial; statements were voluntary and spontaneous, not the product of interrogation.	He was effectively in custody in his home and interrogated without Miranda.	Court: Even assuming custody, detectives did not interrogate—statements were voluntary spontaneous utterances; Miranda not triggered.
Did detectives’ follow-up questions in apartment constitute interrogation under Innis?	Questions (“What do you mean?”) were instinctive reactions to unsolicited statements, not designed to elicit confessions.	The detectives’ follow-ups were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses.	Court: Follow-ups were instinctive and not interrogation under Innis; no indication they should have known responses would be elicited.
Were post-Miranda stationhouse statements the product of a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver?	Yes: Sabourin initialed each right, affirmed understanding orally, then signed a written statement indicating waiver.	Waiver was invalid/uncertain (notably he checked “no” on “I understand my rights”).	Court: State proved by clear and convincing evidence waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; suppression properly denied.
Did police employ the Seibert “question-first” two-step technique rendering post-warning statements inadmissible?	Not applicable—no pre-warning interrogation that triggered Miranda; warnings were given before custodial interview at station.	Detectives withheld an arrest warrant and manipulated Miranda to elicit statements in two steps.	Court: Issue waived below; merits rejected—no midstream interrogation at apartment, so Seibert inapplicable.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warning/waiver rules for custodial interrogation)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (Miranda’s definition of interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (two-step/question-first interrogation doctrine)
State v. Jimenez, 33 A.3d 724 (custody/interrogation and standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Barros, 24 A.3d 1158 (state’s burden to prove waiver by clear and convincing evidence)