State v. Farley

319 A.3d 1080

2024 ME 52

STATE of Maine

v.Corey W. FARLEY

Docket: Som-23-55

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: September 12, 2023

Decided: July 18, 2024

Stephen C. Smith, Esq., and Carl E. Woock, Esq. (orally), Steve Smith Trial Lawyers, Augusta, for appellant Corey W. Farley

Maeghan Maloney, District Attorney, and Frayla Tarpinian, Dep. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District IV, Skowhegan, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, CONNORS, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.^*

LAWRENCE, J.

[¶1] Corey W. Farley appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count of gross sexual assault (Class A), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C) (2024), and one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class B), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1) (2024), entered by the trial court (Somerset County, Mullen, C.J.) after a jury trial. Farley argues that the court erred in denying his motions to suppress his statements to a police detective after determining that he was not in custody during his interview and in finding that his statements to the detective were voluntary. Farley also contends that the court erred in providing only a curative instruction in response to prosecutorial statements made during closing argument, regarding his ability to hear and his anxiety, that mischaracterized the evidence; in allowing prosecutorial statements during closing argument, regarding the meaning of emojis in a message chain, that were unsupported by the evidence; and in allowing prosecutorial statements during closing argument regarding the credibility of witnesses. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

A. Background

[¶2] "Viewing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Athayde, 2022 ME 41, ¶ 2, 277 A.3d 387.

[¶3] In the spring and summer of 2020, the victim frequently visited and spent the night at a friend’s house, where Farley lived; the victim had spent time there for over a year. The victim was eleven years old.¹

[¶4] The victim slept in Farley’s bed. Farley touched the victim’s genitals and had the victim touch Farley’s genitals multiple times. Farley also had the victim engage in oral-genital contact multiple times.²

[¶5] After law enforcement received a complaint about Farley, a detective interviewed Farley on August 20, 2021. During the interview, Farley admitted to having oral-genital contact with the victim and having the victim touch Farley’s genitals.

[¶6] Farley was charged initially by criminal complaint filed on August 24, 2021, and then by indictment filed on November 18, 2021, with one count of gross sexual assault (Class A) (Count 1), 17-A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C), and one count of unlawful sexual contact (Class B) (Count 2), 17-A M.R.S. § 255-A(1)(E-1). Farley pleaded not guilty.

B. Motions to Suppress

[¶7] On October 4, 2021, Farley filed a motion to suppress his statements made in the interview with the detective. Farley contended that the interview violated his rights because he "was in a custodial interrogation" but "no Miranda warnings were given." On January 18, 2022, Farley filed a supplemental motion to suppress. Farley argued that the court should suppress the statements for the additional reason that he "could not hear" the questions due to hearing loss and his confession was thus involuntary.

[¶8] The court held a hearing on the motions to suppress on August 12, 2022. The parties stipulated to the admission in evidence of the recording of the August 20, 2021, interview, and the interview was played during the hearing. The court heard the testimony of the detective; Farley did not testify. The parties subsequently submitted memoranda of law regarding the motions to suppress.

[¶9] In an order entered on August 26, 2022, the court denied Farley’s motions to suppress. "Viewed in the light most favorable to support the suppression court’s decision, the record on the motion[s] to suppress supports the following facts" found by the court. State v. Ames, 2017 ME 27, ¶ 2, 155 A.3d 881.

[¶10] In July 2021, a detective received a complaint that Farley had sexually abused the victim. The victim was interviewed by the Children’s Advocacy Center, and the detective then unsuccessfully attempted to "solicit contact between the [victim] and [Farley] by … messaging [Farley]" while posing as the victim.

[¶11] On August 20, 2021, the detective went to Farley’s residence for approximately forty-five minutes and interviewed Farley for approximately forty minutes. The interview was unscheduled, was recorded, and occurred mid-afternoon in an unmarked law enforcement cruiser in Farley’s driveway, about ten yards from his residence. The detective wore plain clothes but displayed his badge and firearm.

[¶12] The detective said that he was there to gather information and "chat" with Farley to see if Farley was going to be "up front" with the detective "because that makes a world of difference,"³ and Farley said that he had "nothing to hide."⁴ (Quotation marks omitted.) The detective said that Farley did not have to talk to him and that Farley could stop talking to him and leave at any time. The detective did not have any difficulty understanding Farley during the interview. During the same time, Farley did not ask the detective to repeat any questions and did not show that he was having any problem hearing.⁵

[¶13] Based on the totality of the circumstances,⁶ the court determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Farley was not in custody during the interview.⁷ The court also determined that "[t]here is basically no evidence to support" Farley’s contention that his "alleged hearing deficiency resulted in" him involuntarily making statements to the detective. The court further found that multiple factors indicated that Farley’s statements were voluntary.⁸

C. Trial

[1] [¶14] The court held a jury trial on December 14 and 15, 2022. The court admitted in evidence photographs of messages displayed on the screen of a device and almost the entire recording of the detective’s interview with Farley.⁹ One of the photographs depicted a series of messages that began with Farley stating, "10:30 good boy 11 bad boy." The victim responded, "Me bad boy," and Farley messaged, "11 tomorrow night bud." The victim responded, "No," and used three emojis, which the victim testified were "a pointer at — like closing their finger meaning small and an eggplant emoji."¹⁰

[¶15] The victim testified that the eggplant emoji meant "[a] penis," responded yes when asked if the victim was telling Farley that "he has a small penis," and explained that the victim "was making a joke." The detective testified that because of his training and experience he knew that the eggplant emoji meant a penis; that he "deemed [the emoji] to be indicat- ing there was some sort of activity going on with the male genitalia"; and that he thought the emojis meant the victim was "saying, no, I don’t want this" and that Farley and the victim "were talking about a sexual exchange that’s going to happen."¹¹

[¶16] Later during the trial, Farley and his aunt both testified that Farley had issues with hearing loss. Farley further testified that he was diagnosed with anxiety, which also affected his answers during the interview.

[¶17] During the prosecutor’s closing argument, he discussed the victim’s testimony and stated that it "had all of the hallmarks of truth," that the victim "was forthright," and that the victim "has been forthright and maintained the truth."¹² The prosecutor also stated to the jury that the emojis corroborated the victim’s account of the events.¹³ Farley did not object to the prosecutor’s statements.

[¶18] During the prosecutor’s rebuttal, he stated to the jury that there was no evidence other than Farley’s testimony to show that Farley had hearing issues or anxiety.¹⁴ Farley’s counsel objected, and the court instructed the jury that "the attorneys are free to argue what they say the evidence shows or what the evidence doesn’t show or what there is or isn’t for evidence, but it is your memory of what transpired that controls."¹⁵ The prosecutor then stated to the jury that Farley’s aunt had testified that Farley "had a hearing problem, but you know what, my mom thinks I am handsome, that doesn’t really carry a lot of weight." The prosecutor later commented on Farley’s "throwing every excuse against the wall" and indicated that this was "not the [h]allmark of truth."¹⁶ Farley did not object.

[¶19] The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. Farley was sentenced to twenty-three years of imprisonment on Count 1 and ten years of imprisonment on Count 2, to be served concurrently with Count 1. The court also imposed lifetime supervised release.¹⁷ Farley timely appealed. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2024); M.R. App. P. 2B(b)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Suppression Issues ¹⁸

1. Custodial Interrogation Determination

[2, 3] [¶20] Farley contends that the court should have excluded the recorded interview with the detective because, given the totality of factors, Farley was in custody during the interview. Farley points out that, inter alia, he was the only suspect under investigation; he was in a closely-confined police vehicle; and the detective was armed, persistent in his questioning, and implied that Farley would "receive favor for disclosing information."

[4–7] [¶21] "When addressing a challenge to a court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review the motion court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo." State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14, 159 A.3d 840. "A Miranda warning is necessary only if a defendant is: (1) in custody; and (2) subject to interrogation."¹⁹ State v. Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶ 21, 928 A.2d 746 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). "We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact." Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14, 159 A.3d...