State v. Fullerton
2018 UT 49
| Utah | 2018Background
- On July 23, 2008, Gregory Fullerton was caring for his girlfriend’s three‑month‑old son, N.L., who became unresponsive and later died from intracranial and retinal hemorrhages.
- Medical personnel reported suspected inflicted (shaken) injury; police asked Fullerton to come to the station; his father drove him and waited in the lot.
- At the station two plain‑clothes officers questioned Fullerton in an interview room for ~90 minutes, telling him multiple times he was not under arrest and was free to leave; officers did not give Miranda warnings before he made incriminating statements.
- Fullerton gave an evolving set of explanations and ultimately admitted forceful handling of the infant; he was arrested only at the end of the interview.
- Fullerton moved to suppress his statements (Miranda and voluntariness), challenged several expert testimony rulings, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing; the district court denied suppression and he was convicted of child abuse homicide.
- On appeal the Utah Supreme Court affirmed denial of suppression (no Miranda custody; confession voluntary) and declined to consider most other claims as unpreserved or adequately remedied at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Fullerton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fullerton was "in custody" such that Miranda warnings were required | He was effectively in custody at the station (investigative focus, accusatory questioning, officers’ statements), so warnings were required | Not custodial: totality shows a reasonable person would feel free to leave (voluntary arrival, father present, repeated assurances, unlocked room, no restraints) | Not in custody under Miranda; district court affirmed |
| Whether Fullerton’s confession was voluntary | Officers overstated evidence and used interrogation tactics that overbore his will, rendering confession involuntary | Misrepresentations were limited/ordinary police tactics; totality (short duration, no threats/promises, no isolation, no mental incapacity) supports voluntariness | Confession voluntary under totality of circumstances; admission admitted |
| Admissibility / grounds to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Hansen | Multiple challenges: notice of testimony, diagnostic basis for "common trigger" testimony, violation of pretrial order, and an allegedly improper comment | Trial record shows objections largely unpreserved; one objection sustained at trial and no further relief requested | Court declined review of unpreserved claims; where objection was sustained, no additional remedy sought so no appellate relief |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing for attacking witness memory late | Prosecutor saved impeachment for closing, depriving Fullerton opportunity to admit prior consistent statements under rule 801(d)(1)(B) | Defense did not timely object at trial; objection raised only in post‑trial motion; no plain error or exceptional circumstances shown | Unpreserved; appellate review refused under preservation rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial‑interrogation warnings requirement)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (objective totality test for Miranda custody: would reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Salt Lake City v. Carner, 664 P.2d 1168 (Utah 1983) (Utah’s prior four‑factor custody framework; court rejects sole reliance on it)
- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (application of Fifth Amendment privilege to states)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (station‑house questioning not automatically custodial)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (officer’s undisclosed subjective beliefs irrelevant to custody unless manifested)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (all circumstances relevant to how reasonable person perceives freedom to leave)
- Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (voluntariness assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (extreme interrogation techniques may violate due process)
- Rettenberger v. State, 984 P.2d 1009 (Utah 1999) (voluntariness analysis where coercive tactics and defendant vulnerabilities produced involuntary confession)