State v. Balla

1

STATE OF MAINE v. ABDULLA BALLA Defendant

No. CV-19-03725

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

May 25, 2022

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Thomas R. McKeon Justice, Maine Superior Court.

Before the Court is Defendant Abdulla Balla's ("Balla") Motion to Suppress. For the reasons set forth herein, Balla's Motion is DENIED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Based on the testimony provided and exhibits admitted at hearing as well as the parties' filings in this case to date, the court finds that the following facts are supported by the record:

On April 22nd, 2019, Detectives Condon ("Condon") and Cummings ("Cummings") of the Boston Police Department and two Massachusetts Department of Children and Families ("DCF") caseworkers responded to Madison Park High School, in Massachusetts, to investigate a report that a student had been sexually assaulted by her brother. The officers and DCF caseworkers arrived and spoke with the alleged victim who reported that her brother had sexually assaulted her on three occasions.

The first incident, and the conduct which underlies the charges here, occurred in Portland, Maine, in the fall of 2014. The alleged victim - then ten years old - described that she was playing in the attic of her Portland apartment when her brother, later identified as Balla, approached her. The victim reported that Balla physically assaulted her and forced her to her knees so she could perform oral sex on him.

Shortly after the incident, Balla moved to Boston. The victim - Balla's sister - remained in Portland until 2017 when her family relocated to the Boston area as well. After relocating in 2017, the victim reported two more incidents of abuse.^[1]

Condon Cummings and the two DCF caseworkers traveled to the victim's house. When they arrived, they were greeted by Balla's mother and brother. His mother struggled to comprehend English, but the brother spoke it well and translated some of the ensuing conversation for her. The detectives requested to speak with Balla, so the brother called him requesting that he come to the house.

When Balla entered the residence, the detectives greeted him and Balla said he would talk to them. The detectives asked Balla to step into the living room and proceeded to question him recording their conversation.^[2] In the room were Balla, Condon, Cummings, and the two DCF caseworkers. Balla's family members - his mom and brother - remained in the kitchen area throughout the interview.

The conversation began with Balla reciting his date of birth, followed by Condon reading Balla his Miranda rights. Balla appeared to have a difficult time comprehending what Condon was saying. Cummings interjected and spoke with Balla who indicated he had a hard time hearing. Cummings then spoke louder, slower, and more deliberately than Condon, rereading Balla his Miranda rights. Cummings stopped multiple times to ask if Balla understood what he was saying. After both Condon's initial reading and Cummings' clarifications, Balla stated he understood his rights and agreed to speak with the officers. Cummings concluded the warning by saying "I'm going to stress this one again. If you change your mind at some point, feel uncomfortable or you don't want to talk any more, you can stop, and nothing is going to happen to you for exercising that right. Do you understand all that?" Balla responded: "Yes."

Detective Condon began the interview by asking Balla about the incident in Portland. He first asked Balla if he lived with his sister in Portland, Maine. Immediately, Balla responded "What she is saying is right." Condon then said "[your sister] told us you may have been drank, or high on marijuana." Balla clarified "oh yes, it was marijuana." Next Condon recounted the assault allegations saying "[your sister] told us that you forced her on her knees and put your penis in your mouth." Immediately, Balla said "like I said, it's true." Condon responded, "that's true?" and Balla stated "yes." Condon then continued the interview, asking Balla about the two Massachusetts based incidents.

Towards the end of the interview, Cummings circled back to the Maine incident, asking Balla "What happened up in Maine?" Balla responded by saying "that's a lot of crazy stuff there." Balla refused to talk anymore about the Maine incident but verbally confirmed to Cummings that something "bad" did happen in Maine, and that he "forced" his sister to "do something she didn't want to do." The interview concluded with Balla asking if the information he just shared would remain "between us five," presumably referring to the two detectives, the two DCF case workers and Balla. He also asked what was going to happen with the information.

The court finds that Balla had some understanding of English, but that it was limited to some degree. It is not clear from the record that he understood the legal ramifications of speaking to police without an attorney.

Condon testified they had probable cause to arrest Balla after interviewing the child. He also testified, and the court accepts, that they did not plan to arrest Balla at the time they visited the home. They typically look for some verification of a child victim's allegations and may consult with the local District Attorney's office before making an arrest.

After the interview, Condon and Cummings determined that they had probable cause to arrest Balla and did so. Condon later sent his investigative report to the Portland Police Department who forwarded it to the Cumberland County District Attorney's office. On August 19th, 2019, Balla was indicted by a Cumberland County grand jury on two charges. Count I of the indictment charges Gross Sexual Assault, Class A. Count II charges Unlawful Sexual Contact, Class A. On June 16th, 2021, Balla filed a Motion to Suppress and on May 3rd, 2022, a hearing was held in the Cumberland County Superior Court. After the hearing, the court gave the parties until May 17th, 2021, to submit written closing arguments.

DISCUSSION

Balla first argues that his incriminating statements given on April 22nd, 2019, to Condon and Cummings should be suppressed on two grounds. First, he says that because he was in custody, a reading of his Miranda rights was required, and that his subsequent waiver of his Miranda rights was not knowing intelligent or voluntary. Second, Balla challenges the voluntariness of his statements.

I. Custody

The Fifth Amendment provides suspects the right against self-incrimination and requires law enforcement to read them certain rights before subjecting them to custodial interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966); State v. Marden, 673 A.2d 1304, 1309 (Me. 1996). Miranda applies only when a suspect is either in custody or the "functional equivalent of custody." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444. The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance that Miranda warnings were not required. State v. Philbrick, 436 A.2d 844, 850 (Me. 1981).

Whether a suspect is "in custody" is an "objective inquiry" involving an examination of the circumstance surrounding the interrogation and whether "a reasonable person [would] have felt he or she was at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 270 (2011). The ultimate question is, "[W]as there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest[?]" J.D.B., 564 U.S. at 270.

The objective characteristics of an interrogation that may be considered in determining whether a defendant was in custody include, but are not limited to, the following factors:

(1) the locale where the defendant made the statements;

(2) the party who initiated the contact;

(3) the existence or non-existence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent communicated to the defendant);

(4) subjective views, beliefs, or intent that the police manifested to the defendant to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;

(5) subjective views or beliefs that the defendant manifested to the police, to the extent the officer's response would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;

(6) the focus of the investigation (as a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive it);

(7) whether the suspect was questioned in familiar surroundings;

(8) the number of law enforcement officers present; (9) the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect; and

(10) the duration and character of the interrogation.

State v. King, 2016 ME 54, ¶ 17, 136 A.3d 366.

In this case, most of the objective factors support a finding that Balla was not in custody. Balla was questioned in his mother's home, a familiar location. At no time during the interview did the police communicate to Balla that they had probable cause to arrest him. Neither Condon nor Cummings communicated to Balla that he was in custody or that he was not free to leave. He was told he did not have to answer their questions.

Balla also did not seek to leave the living room where he was being questioned. He did not ask the detectives whether he was free to go, request to leave the room, or seek to communicate with family members who were close by in the kitchen. Thus, Balla did not elicit a response from the detectives which suggested he was not free to leave.

Balla was also not placed in any physical restraints. There were only two law enforcement officers present during the interrogation, and they were both dressed in plain clothes. The entire sequence of events - from the detectives' entry to Balla's arrest - lasted approximately thirty minutes. Condon and Cummings did not attempt to intimidate or threaten...