State of Maine v. Hewitt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

'..... .... . - .:r>ir'G -.,,.:c~;c< : > r 1- LED ,.-p:->.,,, - , STATE OF MAINE .. KENNEBEC, ss. 261tJi,:./-q , 2' C" Cog2 r SLIPENOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-05-595 . A::- 11- f Y ! A w A STATE OF MAINE DECISION ON MOTION v. SCOTT HEWITT, Defendant This matter comes before the court on the motion of defendant, Scott Hewitt, to suppress any statements he may have made to law enforcement officials following the motor vehcle accident which occurred on July 29, 2005. Hewitt claims that he was not properly advised of h s constitutional rights prior to questioning and that h s statements were not voluntary. However, the court finds that the State has met its burden of proof with regard to the motion and the motion will be denied on both theories. Background Solely for purposes of t h s Motion to Suppress, the court finds the following. On July 29, 2005, defendant Hewitt was involved in a serious motor vehcle accident on the Maine Turnpike in Hallowell, and Hewitt injured h s kneecap. According to Hewitt's statement to the trooper at the hospital, he had been gven two tablets of Percocet by the staff to help relieve h s knee pain. At hearing, Hewitt testified that he had been gven a "bunch of medications and he did not know what they were. The court found this later testimony to be self-serving and unpersuasive. The defendant's earlier statement to the trooper concerning the two tablets of Percocet was more persuasive. The medication administered was also confirmed by the information gven to Trooper Burke by the trauma nurse at the hospital. Whle the State Police troopers were busy at the scene of the accident, they were joined by an assistant district attorney (ADA), who was aware of the seriousness of the accident and who wanted to make certain that any search was properly conducted. In the process of the scene investigation, the officers found a marijuana pipe in the cab of the defendant's truck. The presence of this paraphernalia changed the scope of the investigation and the ADA called for a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to look at the defendant at the hospital. The ADA then joined the troopers already at the hospital. One of the troopers questioned the defendant at the hospital, with the ADA present. Before that interview, the trooper advised the defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, as required by the Miranda decision. The trooper read h s information from a preprinted card, and the defendant indicated that he understood each line in the card (State's Exh. 1). The defendant waived his right to remain silent and indicated that he would answer questions. During the interview, the defendant sat in a wheelchair due to h s broken kneecap. He exhibited no signs of impairment and h s answers to the questions seemed appropriate. When the DRE arrived at the hospital, he initially conducted a blood test to rule out the presence of alcohol in the defendant's blood. The test came back 0.0% blood alcohol content. The intoxilyzer test was performed at the Kennebec County Sheriff's Office. The DRE then proceeded to administer tests including horizontal gaze nystagmus and finger to nose tests. Prior to the testing, the defendant had been given a second set of Miranda warnings. The conclusion of the examination was that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicants. There was some sign of the Percocet whch had been taken for pain control, but the medication had no effect upon the defendant's mental abilities or h s ability to answer questions. After questioning at the Kennebec County Sheriff's Office, the defendant returned to the hospital for further observation and was eventually arrested on an outstanding warrant for other charges. The defendant was taken to the Cumberland County Jail, where he was subsequently interviewed by another State Police Trooper on September 14, 2005. The defendant was again given his Mivanda warnings. The defendant waived his rights and again answered questions concerning the incident. Discussion In light of the foregoing, the defendant argues that he was seriously injured in a significant accident, and that as the result of these injuries and the medication he received to help control pain, his statements to law enforcement officers at the hospital were not voluntary. He further argues that the involuntariness of the hospital statements taints the subsequent questioning at the county jail, in that the defendant answered the officer's questions because he felt obliged to do so in light of h s earlier statements and he believed the officers were there to help him. In light of tlus argument, it is the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntarily made. The State has met that burden. First, the court was generally unpersuaded by the defendant's testimony and, therefore, gives little credence to h s version of the events. Second, the law enforcement officials at the scene of the accident, at the hospital and at the jail were scrupulous in educating the defendant concerning h s rights to remain silent and to be represented by counsel. They observed notlung in the defendant's behavior or statements w l c h would lead them to believe that the statements were. not voluntarily given. The defendant was suffering from a broken kneecap, but when interviewed, the defendant was either seated in a wheelchair or supported by crutches, and he had been medicated for pain. Neither any residual pain nor other effects of the medication had effect on the defendanrs mental abilities or h s ability to voluntarily answer questions. Considering all of these circumstances, the State has met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt, both as to statements made at the hospital and later at the jail. The entry will be: Motion DENIED. Dated: January ,2006 1 Justice, Superior Court SUPERIOR COURT KEMJEBEC, ss. Docket No AUGSC-CR-2005-00595 STATE OF MAINE vs SCOTT HEWITT DELWOOD TRAILER PARK LOT 49 CARIBOU ME 04736 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 10/20/1972 Attorney: JOEL VINCENT VINCENT, KANTZ & RUFFNER 80 EXCHANGE ST., SUITE 32 PORTLAND ME 04101 APPOrNTED 09/26/2005 State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E) Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Filing Date: 09/21/2005 Charge ( s) OPERATING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED Seq 9888 29-A 2412-A(1-A)(A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 2 UNLAWFUL USE OF LICENSE Seq 9874 29-A 2102(l-A) REYNOLDS / MSP 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 1 Class E 3 FAILING TO OBTAIN OPERATING AUTHORITY LICENSE Class E Seq 1261 29-A 552(1) REYNOLDS / MSP 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 4 RULE VIOLATION Z NOT LISTED PRIOR Seq 10040 29-A 558(1-B) (A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 5 RULE VIOLATION, OPERATION WITH FALSE DUTY Seq 10006 29-A 558(1-B) (A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 6 RULE VIOLATION, OPERATION WITH FALSE DUTY Seq 10006 29-A 558(1-B) (A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 7 RULE VIOLATION OPERATE WITHOUT MEDICAL CERTIFICATE Seq 10011 29-A 558(1-B) (A) Class E REYNOLDS / MSP 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 8 RADAR DETECTOR IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLE Seq 10053 29-A 558 (1-B)(A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL 9 DRIVER USES OR IN POSSESSION OF DRUGS Seq 10056 29-A 558 (1-B)(A) Class E / MSP REYNOLDS 07/29/2005 HALLOWELL Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 01/09/2006 SCOTT HEWITT AUGSC-CR-2005-00595 DOCKET RECORD Docket Events: 09/29/2005 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL ED1 ON 09/29/2005 @ 20:OO TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID AUGDCCR200502367 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 09/21/2005 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/26/2005 @ 1:00 in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 09/26/2005 RAE ANN FRENCH , JUDGE DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS BAIL BOND - $100,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 09/21/2005 VENDEAN V VAFIADES , JUDGE Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MOTION - MOTION TO IMPOUND FILED BY STATE ON 09/21/2005 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MOTION - MOTION TO IMPOUND GRANTED ON 09/21/2005 VENDEAN V VAFIADES , JUDGE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL AFFIDAVIT . . . WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 09/21/2005 AS TO THE CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDAEJT ON 09/26/2005 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULED FOR 12/23/2005 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL TRIAL - BENCH NOT HELD ON 09/29/2005 TRIAL - BENCH NOTICE SENT ON 09/26/2005 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND TRANSFERRED ON 09/29/2005 AUGSC BAIL BOND - $100,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND COMMITMENT ISSUED ON 09/26/2005 RAE ANN FRENCH , JUDGE MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/26/2005 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL G m E D ON 09/26/2005 RAE ANN FRENCH , JUDGE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Party ( S) : SCOTT HEWITT ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 4 Printed on: 01/09/2006 SCOTT HEWITT AUGSC-CR-2005-00595 DOCKET RECORD Attorney: JOEL VINCENT Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ON 09/29/2005 Attorney: JOEL VINCENT Charge(s1: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 FINDING - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL TRANSFERRED ON 09/29/2005 AUGSC 10/04/2005 Charge ( s ) : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL R E W D BY COURT ON 10/04/2005 AUGDC-CR-05-2367 10/06/2005 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 11/07/2005 @ 3:30 10/18/2005 HEARING - BAIL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 10/21/2005 @ 2:30 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/18/2005 HEARING - BAIL HEARING NOTICE SENT ON 10/18/2005 10/20/2005 LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 10/19/2005 DA: EVERT FOWLE DISCOVERY LETTER 10/20/2005 MOTION - MOTION FOR BAIL RECONSID. FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/20/2005 10/24/2005 HEARING - BAIL HEARING HELD ON 10/21/2005 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE Attorney: JOEL VINCENT Reporter: JANETTE COOK Defendant Present in Court 10/24/2005 MOTION - MOTION FOR BAIL RECONSID. DENIED ON 10/21/2005 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE W/OUT PREJUDICE 11/01/2005 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/31/2005 11/14/2005 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL HELD ON 11/07/2005 11/14/2005 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 11/29/2005 @ 1:00 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/14/2005 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 11/14/2005 11/23/2005 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO TESTIFY ISSUED ON 11/23/2005 CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. 11/30/2005 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 11/29/2005 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE Attorney: JOEL VINCENT DA: ALAN KELLEY Reporter : TAMMY DROUIN Defendant Present in Court Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 01/09/2006 SCOTT HEWITT AUGSC-CR-2005-00595 DOCKET RECORD STATE WITNESSES: DAVID DRAYSON, BRAD GRANT, ROBERT BOURQUE 11/30/2005 CASE STATUS - DECISION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 11/29/2005 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE 01/09/2006 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT DENIED ON 01/09/2006 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/09/2006 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 01/09/2006 DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS A TRUE COPY ATTEST : Clerk Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 01/09/2006

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.