State v. MacDonald, 402 P.3d 91

Background

Robbie MacDonald was the sole caregiver when a ten-month-old child was found unresponsive and later diagnosed with abusive head trauma, retinal hemorrhages, subdural hematoma, and irreversible brain damage.
Police conducted three recorded interviews at the stationhouse; MacDonald was not arrested, was unrestrained, the doors were closed but not locked, officers wore plain clothes and displayed no weapons, and MacDonald left after each interview.
During the second interview officers confronted MacDonald with medical findings and he later gave a signed written statement; the third interview occurred after a Miranda advisal and waiver.
MacDonald moved to suppress his statements from the first and second interviews and his written statement as Miranda violations; the district court suppressed the first and second interview statements and the written statement but admitted the third.
The State sought to admit prior-act (Rule 404(b)) evidence about MacDonald’s treatment of the child (yelling, name-calling, jealousy, flipping-off gesture, prior rough handling and possible bruising); the district court admitted only racial-slur evidence and excluded other prior-act evidence.
The State appealed interlocutorily; the court of appeals reviewed custody/Miranda issues de novo and 404(b)/403 exclusions for abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (MacDonald)	Held
Whether MacDonald was "in custody" during the first interview such that Miranda warnings were required	The interrogation occurred at the stationhouse and was accusatory, so it was custodial and Miranda warnings were required	The interview was voluntary, brief, unrestrained, and MacDonald was free to leave, so not custodial	Not custodial; suppression of first interview reversed
Whether MacDonald was "in custody" during the second interview such that Miranda warnings were required	The longer, more accusatory second interview rendered it custodial	Same as above; no formal arrest or restraints and he could leave	Not custodial; suppression of second interview and written statement reversed
Whether, if custodial, MacDonald waived Miranda rights for any interviews	(Alt.) Even if custodial, any required warnings were given or waived	MacDonald did not receive or waive Miranda rights in the first two interviews	Court did not reach waiver issue because interviews were not custodial
Whether the district court abused discretion in excluding various Rule 404(b) prior-act evidence	Prior rough handling and prior bruising are admissible to show pattern, lack of accident, and intent; other acts rebut claimed accident	Some prior acts are character evidence or of low probative value and unfairly prejudicial	Reversed exclusion of evidence that MacDonald dropped child on prior occasions and bruised child’s cheeks; affirmed exclusion of yelling, "whiner," jealousy opinion, and flipping-off evidence; remand to reweigh under Rule 403

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishing custodial-interrogation Miranda warnings rule)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1977) (stationhouse interview not custodial where suspect came voluntarily and left after interview)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1983) (voluntary stationhouse interview not custodial where suspect was allowed to leave)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the interrogation and leave)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (distinguishing temporary detentions from Miranda custody)
State v. Levin, 144 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2006) (discussing Miranda custody analysis under Utah law)
State v. Thornton, 391 P.3d 1016 (Utah 2017) (Rule 404(b) admissibility threshold: plausible non-character purpose and then 403 balancing)
State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah 2008) (prior uncharged abuse of same victim admissible to show pattern, intent, or lack of accident)