Michaud factors in Maine

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2023Moreover, the Law Court has observed that “Iwlhen an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a ‘relatively low-key and non-confrontational manner,’ the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.” Glenn, 2021 ME 7, § 22 , 244 A.8d 1023.

2023Moreover, the Law Court has observed that “Iwlhen an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a ‘relatively low-key and non-confrontational manner,’ the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.” Glenn, 2021 ME 7, § 22 , 244 A.8d 1023.

2021Because both custody and interrogation must be present to trigger the need to 15 provide Miranda warnings, see Ames, 2017 ME 27, ¶ 12 , 155 A.3d 881 , the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress on this ground.

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2021Because both custody and interrogation must be present to trigger the need to 15 provide Miranda warnings, see Ames, 2017 ME 27, ¶ 12 , 155 A.3d 881 , the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress on this ground.

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2021“We treat the determination of whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes as a mixed question of law and fact,” State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, ¶ 14 , 159 A.3d 840 , and “will not 13 reverse a trial court’s custodial determination unless the record fails to rationally support the finding.” Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4 , 724 A.2d 1222 . [¶22] When an individual is in familiar surroundings, is not physically restrained, and is interviewed in a “relatively low-key and non-confrontational” manner, the Michaud factors weigh in favor of concluding that the individual is not in custody.

2018This limitation entirely removes section 4056 from the Mansfield/Michaud test of whether a statute is penal or remedial-hence why the Law Court looked to the statutory scheme of Chapter 59 of Tltle 32 to 7 determine that the "legislative pmpose of the sanctions set forth in section 40561s regulatory and not penal." Anderson, 512 A.2d at 353 .

2012We consider these factors “in their totality, not in isolation.” Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶ 11 , 48 A.3d 218 . [¶ 23] The Michaud factors inform our conclusion that a reasonable person in Jones’s position would have felt free to leave each of the three interrogations.

2012We consider these factors “in their totality, not in isolation.” Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶ 11 , 48 A.3d 218 . [¶ 23] The Michaud factors inform our conclusion that a reasonable person in Jones’s position would have felt free to leave each of the three interrogations.

2002“We will uphold a denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court’s decision” and “review any questions of law that arise in the analysis de novo.” State v. O’Rourke, 2001 ME 163, ¶ 12 , 792 A.2d 262, 265 (citing State v. Thibodeau, 2000 ME 52, ¶ 5 , 747 A.2d 596, 598 ); see also State v. Storey, 1998 ME 161, ¶ 8 , 713 A.2d 331, 333 (reviewing historical facts deferentially, “but when the challenge is to the legal conclusion drawn from the historical facts our review is de novo”). [¶ 14] Viewing the facts established at the suppression hearing in

2002“We will uphold a denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court’s decision” and “review any questions of law that arise in the analysis de novo.” State v. O’Rourke, 2001 ME 163, ¶ 12 , 792 A.2d 262, 265 (citing State v. Thibodeau, 2000 ME 52, ¶ 5 , 747 A.2d 596, 598 ); see also State v. Storey, 1998 ME 161, ¶ 8 , 713 A.2d 331, 333 (reviewing historical facts deferentially, “but when the challenge is to the legal conclusion drawn from the historical facts our review is de novo”). [¶ 14] Viewing the facts established at the suppression hearing in

1998In its order on Michaud’s motion for further findings, the trial court stated that, “[b]ecause the evidence of self-defense was not believed by the fact finder, the issue did not sufficiently raise a reasonable doubt such that it had to be disproved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” By stating that the court itself did not believe Michaud’s self-defense evidence, the court failed to take the evidence “in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 695 A.2d at 117 .

1998In its order on Michaud’s motion for further findings, the trial court stated that, “[b]ecause the evidence of self-defense was not believed by the fact finder, the issue did not sufficiently raise a reasonable doubt such that it had to be disproved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.” By stating that the court itself did not believe Michaud’s self-defense evidence, the court failed to take the evidence “in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Sullivan, 1997 ME 71, ¶ 6 , 695 A.2d at 117 .