State v. Marc Gouin, 182 A.3d 28

In 2013 a grand jury indicted Marc Gouin on four counts of child molestation based on allegations by his niece (Emma) that abuse occurred in 2005; Gouin moved to suppress statements he made during a July 11, 2012 home interview by a Massachusetts DCF investigator, Kristin Prescott.
Prescott visited Gouin’s Seekonk, MA home to assess the safety of a child (Olivia); the visit was scheduled after a SAIN interview of Emma and following Prescott’s communications with police and review of prior police reports.
At a kitchen-table interview Prescott told Gouin about Emma’s allegations; Gouin spoke emotionally and at length, did not ask her to stop, and did not have counsel present; Prescott later gave a DCF brochure (describing a right to counsel) and a letter, but Prescott and Gouin dispute the timing of delivery.
The Superior Court granted Gouin’s motion to suppress, concluding Prescott was a government agent and that the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Gouin knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights—partly because the brochure was given after the interview and Prescott’s testimony was found evasive.
The State appealed; the Rhode Island Supreme Court accepted the hearing justice’s factual findings but reviewed voluntariness de novo.

Issue	State's Argument	Gouin's Argument	Held
Whether the DCF investigator was a police agent	Prescott was not acting at police direction; she was assessing child safety	Prescott acted as a government agent because she communicated with police and was required to report abuse	Investigator was a police agent during the interview
Whether Gouin’s statements were voluntary under Due Process	Statements were voluntary under the totality of circumstances; Gouin was not in custody and had opportunity to obtain counsel	Failure to disclose mandatory-reporter status and late provision of brochure rendered statements involuntary/coerced	Statements were voluntary; State met burden by clear and convincing evidence
Whether Miranda or Sixth Amendment protections applied	Miranda inapplicable because Gouin was not in custody; no Sixth Amendment right had attached	Argued reliance on prior 2005 charges (not pursued at hearing)	Miranda and Sixth Amendment did not apply; voluntariness analyzed under Due Process
Effect of brochure timing (right-to-counsel notice)	No constitutional requirement to give brochure before interview when not in custody or charged	Late delivery deprived Gouin of ability to know/waive rights, supporting involuntariness	Timing did not render statements involuntary; no duty to give brochure at interview outset

Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (holding that government coercion is a necessary predicate to a due-process involuntariness finding)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial Miranda warnings requirement)
Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (discussing attachment and protection of Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
State v. Oliveira, 961 A.2d 299 (R.I. 2008) (DCF/DCYF investigator held a state actor where statutorily required to report incriminating information)
State v. Bojang, 138 A.3d 171 (R.I. 2016) (voluntariness assessed by totality of circumstances; statements must be product of free rational choice)
State v. Sabourin, 161 A.3d 1132 (R.I. 2017) (appellate review standard: defer to trial justice’s factual findings, review constitutional questions de novo)