State v. Mustapha Bojang, 138 A.3d 171

Background

In 2009 a grand jury indicted Mustapha Bojang on eight counts of first-degree child molestation; two convictions were returned after an eight-day jury trial.
Bojang was arrested and questioned twice at the Woonsocket Police Department: an unrecorded first interrogation (≈20–30 minutes) and a fully video-recorded second interrogation (≈30 minutes) during which he made detailed admissions.
Detectives Hammann and LaBreche testified; Hammann acknowledged limited recall and evasive testimony at the suppression hearing; LaBreche admitted banging on a table and raising his voice in the first interview but denied physical assault or threats.
Bojang testified he was threatened with deportation, assaulted (slapped), and coerced into confessing; he claimed fear of immigration consequences motivated a false confession.
The trial justice denied the motion to suppress, finding Bojang’s confession voluntary and discrediting his claims of assault and threats; this Court remanded for further factfinding (Bojang I), after which the trial justice reaffirmed his rulings and the conviction was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bojang)	Held
Whether the post-arrest statements were involuntary and should be suppressed	Statements were voluntary; Bojang knowingly, intelligently waived Miranda and admissions on video show voluntariness	Confession was coerced by physical assault, threats (including deportation), and intimidation during unrecorded interrogation	Affirmed: trial justice’s factual findings not clearly erroneous; confession voluntary under totality of circumstances
Credibility of detective testimony (Hammann)	Hammann’s denials of physical force and threats are credible despite evasiveness on cross	Hammann was not credible; his evasive testimony undermines state’s proof against coercion	Affirmed: trial justice reasonably credited Hammann’s denials and assessed demeanor evidence
Effect of unrecorded portion of interrogation on voluntariness	Unrecorded portion did not produce coercion that rendered later recorded confession involuntary	Unrecorded interrogation involved assault/threats that overbore Bojang’s will and contaminated recorded confession	Affirmed: trial justice’s parsing of record justified finding that unrecorded conduct (table banging/raised voice) did not render confession involuntary
Whether admission of confession was harmless given other evidence	Confession admissible; other corroborating evidence exists and conviction stands	Admission was outcome-determinative because physical evidence was lacking and complainant’s testimony was central	Affirmed: suppression denial not reversible; conviction stands (court did not find constitutional error requiring new trial)

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial suspects must be advised of rights before interrogation)
State v. Bojang, 83 A.3d 526 (R.I. 2014) (prior remand ordering additional factfinding on voluntariness)
State v. Bido, 941 A.2d 822 (R.I. 2008) (state must prove waiver by clear and convincing evidence)
State v. Mlyniec, 15 A.3d 983 (R.I. 2011) (two-step review: factual findings deferential, voluntariness reviewed de novo)
State v. Perez, 882 A.2d 574 (R.I. 2005) (standard for reviewing suppression factual findings)
State v. Humphrey, 715 A.2d 1265 (R.I. 1998) (definitions of voluntary and involuntary statements; demeanor relevant)
State v. Ramsey, 844 A.2d 715 (R.I. 2004) (consider totality of the circumstances for voluntariness)