State v. Jeremy Braulick, 349 P.3d 508

On Dec. 27, 2011, Jeremy Braulick attacked and stabbed his mother (Cheryl Kautzman) and step‑father (Scott Kautzman) at their Livingston, Montana home; both victims survived.
Officers arrived; one officer encountered a blood‑covered Scott and began rendering aid; another officer encountered Braulick outside, handcuffed him, and turned on an audio recorder.
While in custody and after telling officers he wanted an attorney, Braulick made spontaneous statements (e.g., “I never assaulted anybody in my life until now,” “give me my max time,” and related outbursts) before receiving Miranda warnings; a later detective read Miranda warnings and Braulick invoked his rights.
Braulick was charged with two counts of attempted deliberate homicide (weapon enhancement) and moved to suppress post‑custody statements and to exclude Cheryl from the courtroom during Scott’s testimony.
The District Court denied suppression (finding many remarks spontaneous and initial questions were safety/clarifying questions) and denied exclusion of Cheryl under Montana’s victim‑presence statute; Braulick was convicted and sentenced to 90 years total.

Issue	State's Argument	Braulick's Argument	Held
Whether statements made after custody, after asking for counsel, and before Miranda must be suppressed	Officers’ brief, limited questions were safety/clarifying (not interrogation); many remarks were spontaneous and thus admissible	Statements occurred in custody after invoking right to counsel and without Miranda warnings, so they must be excluded	Court: No error — custody existed but limited questions were permissible; spontaneous, unsolicited statements admissible despite lack of Miranda; invocation of counsel does not bar admitted voluntary statements absent interrogation
Whether victim (Cheryl) should be excluded from courtroom during co‑victim’s testimony	Victims have statutory right to be present; exclusion requires specific facts showing prejudice or disruption	Presence prejudices Braulick because they hear other testimony and may tailor testimony	Court: No error — defendant failed to produce specific facts required by statute; unpreserved trial objections waived on appeal

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (invocation of counsel bars further interrogation but police may use volunteered statements)
State v. Johnson, 580 P.2d 1387 (Mont.) (spontaneous/unsolicited remarks admissible without Miranda)
State v. Olson, 66 P.3d 297 (Mont.) (Miranda triggers: custody + interrogation; focus on suspect’s perception)
State v. Hurlbert, 211 P.3d 869 (Mont.) (officer may ask limited questions to confirm or dispel suspicions before Miranda attaches)
State v. Scheffer, 230 P.3d 462 (Mont.) (distinguishes Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation from Sixth Amendment right)
State v. Main, 255 P.3d 1240 (Mont.) (invocation of counsel requires cessation of custodial interrogation)