Find Legal Information

State v. Ricky Millay
Download as PDF
Back to the Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	2001 ME 177
Docket: 	Pen-01-66
Argued:  	November 6, 2001
Decided:	December 27, 2001

Panel: 	SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.

STATE OF MAINE

v.

RICKY MILLAY

CALKINS, J. 

	[¶1]  Ricky Millay appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior
Court (Penobscot County, Mills, J.) following a jury verdict finding him guilty
of operating under the influence (Class C), 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411 (1996 &
Supp. 2001).  Millay argues that the court erred in admitting his statement
to a police officer in which he refused to take field sobriety tests.  We affirm.

I.  FACTS AND PROCEDURE

	[¶2]  Early on a Sunday morning in May 1999, Millay tried to buy a
bottle of wine at a convenience store in Old Town.  The clerk refused to sell
him the wine because it was before the legal time for selling liquor on a
Sunday and because the clerk thought he was intoxicated.  The clerk
noticed that Millay's speech was slurred and his eyes were glassy.  The clerk
saw Millay drive away from the store in a blue wrecker and saw him back
over a sign in the process.
	[¶3]  Officer Bryant of the Orono Police Department was notified by his
dispatcher to watch for a blue wrecker being operated by an intoxicated
driver.  Bryant located a blue wrecker parked near a store.  Bryant then
watched the blue wrecker leave the parking lot and turn into the driveway of
a residence without signaling the turn.  Bryant, who noticed that the
wrecker did not have a front license plate, turned on the blue lights of his
cruiser and pulled behind the wrecker.   
	[¶4]  Bryant talked to Millay, who was the operator of the wrecker,
and observed that Millay's eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that his
speech was slurred.  Bryant smelled the odor of intoxicating liquor coming
from Millay's mouth.  In response to a question from Bryant, Millay said he
had been drinking the previous night.  Bryant asked Millay to perform field
sobriety tests, and Millay said, "No, I have been through this before."  In the
meantime, Travis Roy, an Old Town police officer, arrived, and he saw that
Millay was unsteady on his feet.  Roy heard Millay's statement to Bryant
refusing to take the field sobriety tests.
	[¶5]  Millay was indicted for operating under the influence.  The
indictment alleged that he had three prior convictions for operating under
the influence.  Millay filed a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from
his detention and arrest on the grounds that he was detained without
reasonable articulable suspicion and arrested without probable cause. 
Following a suppression hearing at which the two police officers testified,
Millay's motion was denied.  	Prior to the commencement of the trial, the
parties stipulated that if the jury found that Millay operated while under the
influence, Millay would admit to his prior record of OUI convictions.  The
jury was not informed of that portion of the indictment charging Millay with
the three previous convictions.
	[¶6]  At trial, the convenience store clerk and the two police officers
testified.  Millay and a friend of his testified, also.  The jury found Millay
guilty of operating under the influence.{1}  

II.  DISCUSSION

	[¶7]  Millay's appeal concerns only the admissibility of his statement,
"No, I have been through this before."  Bryant testified to Millay's statement
at trial when the prosecutor asked him what Millay said when Bryant
requested Millay to perform field sobriety tests.  Millay objected to the
prosecutor's question.  Specifically, at sidebar, Millay's counsel said: "I think
that it's more prejudicial than probative.  [Bryant] can testify that [Millay]
declined to take the test, but not that he's been through it before."  The
court overruled the objection.
	[¶8]  Millay argues three grounds for holding that the court erred in
admitting the statement.  We discuss first whether the court exceeded its
discretion in admitting the statement over Millay's objection that it was
more prejudicial than probative, an obvious reference to M.R. Evid. 403. 
Second, we consider his claim that the admission of the statement violates
M.R. Evid. 404(b) because it is evidence of other crimes offered to show that
Millay acted in conformity with the other crimes.  Third, we review whether
the admission of his statement violated his privilege against self-
incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution.
  	  
A. 	Rule 403

	[¶9]  The only basis Millay gave for objecting to the admissibility of his
statement was Rule 403.{2}  We review the court's ruling for abuse of
discretion. State v. Pierce, 2001 ME 14, ¶ 28, 770 A.2d 630, 637. 
	[¶10]  Millay's objection pursuant to Rule 403 was not to the evidence
of the fact that he refused to take the field sobriety tests.  His Rule 403
objection was only to his statement that he had "been through this before." 
The statement was relevant in that it was probative of his guilt.  It indicated
that he did not want to take the field sobriety tests because he knew enough
about them to know that he could not pass the tests at that time.  The
evidence was prejudicial, but the issue is whether it would have a tendency
to move the jury to decide the case on an improper basis.  Pierce, 2001 ME
14, ¶ 28, 770 A.2d at 637.  It would be improper for the jury to decide that
because Millay is a person who has been stopped previously for OUI, it is
more likely that he drove under the influence on this occasion.
	[¶11]  In our Rule 403 decisions, we have emphasized the wide
discretion granted to trial courts to determine whether the value of the
proffered evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice.  State v. Ifill, 574 A.2d 889, 891 (Me. 1990).  In State v. Ifill, we
upheld the admission of the defendant's written statement that he was
refusing a blood-alcohol test because he was on federal parole.  We indicated
that Ifill was a case in which another judge might have ruled differently from
the trial judge, but neither judge would have exceeded the court's
discretion.  See id.; see also State v. Hayes, 675 A.2d 106, 109-10 (Me.
1996) (upholding admissibility, over Rule 403 objection, of defendant's
statement during OUI arrest that he could tell the officer where two kilos of
cocaine were located).  Because of the broad discretion granted to trial
courts, we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, looking at the evidence as a
whole, that the probative value of Millay's statement was substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  As in Ifill, this is a case in
which neither the admission nor the exclusion of Millay's statement on Rule
403 grounds would constitute an abuse of discretion.

B. 	Rule 404(b)

	[¶12]  We review the admissibility of Millay's statement under Rule
404(b) for obvious error because Millay did not object to the evidence on
this ground.{3}  See State v. Thomes, 1997 ME 146, ¶ 7, 697 A.2d 1262,
1264.  Rule 404(b) makes the evidence of bad acts inadmissible to show
propensity to commit the charged offense, but bad acts are admissible to
show intent, identity, opportunity, motive, and other similar purposes.  See
State v. Turner, 2001 ME 44, ¶ 5, 766 A.2d 1025, 1027. 
	[¶13]  Millay's statement was not a direct admission that he had
operated under the influence previously, but from it a fair inference could be
drawn that he had knowledge of field sobriety tests.  The statement was
admissible for evidence of that knowledge, not for evidence that he had
been detained previously for OUI.  Considering this purpose, it was not
obvious error to admit the statement.
   
C. 	Self-incrimination

	[¶14]  The remaining basis that Millay asserts for the inadmissibility of
his statement is also reviewed for obvious error because he failed to object
on this ground.  He alleges that his statement is protected by the United
States and Maine Constitutions.

	1. 	Fifth Amendment

	[¶15]  Evidence from a defendant that is nontestimonial is not within
the privilege against self-incrimination, and neither the Fifth Amendment of
the United States Constitution, nor article I, section 6 of the Maine
Constitution, prohibits the use of nontestimonial evidence.  Pennsylvania v.
Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 589 (1990); State v. McKechnie, 1997 ME 40, ¶¶ 8,
9, 690 A.2d 976, 978-79.  We have held that the admission into evidence of
a defendant's performance on field sobriety tests did not violate the
defendant's privilege against self-incrimination because the evidence was
nontestimonial.  State v. Eastman, 1997 ME 39, ¶ 10, 691 A.2d 179,
182-83; McKechnie, 1997 ME 40, ¶ 10, 690 A.2d at 979.  It follows that
because a defendant's performance on field sobriety tests is admissible as
nontestimonial, the fact that the defendant refused or declined to
participate in such tests is likewise nontestimonial, and the admission into
evidence of the fact of refusal does not violate the defendant's Fifth
Amendment right.  The fact that Millay refused to take the tests, although
the refusal was manifested with the word "no," is admissible because it was
nothing more than a refusal to provide nontestimonial evidence.	
	[¶16]  Although the fact of refusal is admissible as nontestimonial, the
remainder of Millay's statement, that he had been through it before, is
testimonial.  It is testimonial because it is a statement communicating "an
express or implied assertion of fact or belief."  Muniz, 496 U.S. at 597. 
Although the statement, or this portion of it, is testimonial, its admission
did not violate Millay's constitutional right because the statement was not
compelled.  Although the Fifth Amendment and article I, section 6 prohibit
the admission into evidence of a criminal defendant's statement that is
obtained by compulsion by the police, statements that are not compelled are
admissible.  There is no suggestion by Millay that his statement was the
result of compulsion or otherwise involuntary.  He was not under arrest; the
usual indicia of an arrest were not present; there was no evidence of any
circumstances that his will was overborne.  Compulsion was not a factor in
this case, and because Millay's statement was not compelled or involuntary,
it is admissible.
	[¶17]  Millay argues, however, that even though his statement was not
compelled, his statement is the same as a statement invoking the right to
remain silent.  If Millay had said unambiguously that he refused to speak or
that he was exercising his right to remain silent, we would have to reach the
issue of whether a pre-arrest invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege
prohibits his statement from being admitted into evidence.  Whether a pre-
arrest invocation of the right to remain silent is admissible in the State's
case in chief is an issue undecided by the Supreme Court.  The federal
circuits are split on the question.{4}  We need not venture into this thorny
issue because we hold that Millay's statement is not an invocation of his Fifth
Amendment privilege.  Millay was not asserting his right to remain silent. 
He did not refuse to talk; he did not say anything about his right to remain
silent.  He only stated his unwillingness to take the field sobriety tests and
gave his reason for refusing to take the tests.  His statement that he had
"been through this before" was not the equivalent of invoking his right to
remain silent.

	2. 	Maine Constitution

	[¶18]  Millay argues that because the wording of article I, section 6 of
the Maine Constitution differs from the wording of the Fifth Amendment, we
are not bound by case law construing the Fifth Amendment.  The relevant
portion of article I, section 6 provides that the accused in a criminal
prosecution "shall not be compelled to furnish or give evidence against
himself[.]"  We have held that the state constitutional privilege against self-
incrimination provides more protection than its federal counterpart.  State
v. Rees, 2000 ME 55, ¶¶ 6-8, 748 A.2d 976, 978-79.  However, we have
consistently followed federal precedent as to the admissibility of
nontestimonial evidence, and we have declined to extend the state
constitutional privilege to nontestimonial evidence.  Id. ¶ 9, 748 A.2d at
979; Eastman, 1997 ME 39, ¶ 10, 691 A.2d at 182-83.  Because we
conclude that Millay's refusal to take the sobriety tests is nontestimonial,
the Maine Constitution does not prohibit its admission.  Furthermore, as we
stated above, compulsion was not a factor in this case, and therefore, the
statement cannot be excluded on that basis.
	[¶19]  We are aware that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
whose state constitutional provision against self-incrimination is similar to
ours, has held that the admission of evidence of a refusal to submit to field
sobriety tests violates the state constitution.{5}  Commonwealth v. McGrail,
647 N.E.2d 712, 715 (Mass. 1995).  In that case, the officer asked the
defendant to perform field sobriety tests and the defendant stated that "[he
was] not going to do any tests."  Id. at 714.  The Massachusetts court, while
adhering to the concept that nontestimonial and noncompelled evidence is
admissible under the state constitution, held that the refusal was testimonial
because it was equivalent to a statement by the defendant that he had so
much to drink he knew or suspected that he was unable to pass the tests.{6} 
Id.
	[¶20]  We are not persuaded by the reasoning of the Massachusetts
court.  We conclude that refusing a field sobriety test is not a testimonial act. 
While the act of refusing may be equivalent to a defendant's statement that
he does not want to do the one-legged stand because he knows he is too
drunk to keep his balance, it is no different than the defendant performing
the one-legged stand and losing his balance.  The latter action can easily be
equated to a statement by the defendant of "I'm too drunk to keep my
balance."  If we are going to allow into evidence a description of a
defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, as we have done in State v.
Eastman, then we have to allow evidence of a refusal to take the tests. 
There is no logical distinction between the two.  We acknowledge that the
wording of our constitutional provision is closer to the Massachusetts
language than the federal provision, but the language difference does not
justify excluding evidence of a refusal to take field sobriety tests while
admitting evidence of the results of such tests.
	The entry is:
			Judgment affirmed.
                                                        
Attorneys for State:

R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney
C. Daniel Wood, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally)
97 Hammond Street
Bangor, ME 04401

G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General
Donald W. Macomber, Asst. Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006

Attorney for defendant:

Stephen C. Smith, Esq. (orally)
28 Main Street, suite 1
Bangor, ME 04401