Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Andrew Seamon’s conviction for unlawful sexual contact and his sentence. The court held that Seamon’s statements to a detective were voluntary, that the sentencing court could consider factually reliable testimony concerning multiple instances of sexual contact, and that Seamon must register as a lifetime registrant under SORNA 1999 rather than under SORNA 2013.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Seamon's statements during the police interview were involuntary under the totality of the circumstances and therefore inadmissible.
- Whether the sentencing court improperly considered sexual-contact incidents related to charges on which the jury acquitted Seamon or failed to reach a verdict when setting the basic sentence.
- Whether Seamon's sex-offender registration duty was governed by SORNA 2013 or by SORNA 1999.
Holdings
- The suppression court properly denied the motion to suppress because Seamon's statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- The sentencing court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise misapply sentencing principles by considering factually reliable testimony concerning three sexual-contact incidents when setting Seamon's basic sentence, even though related charges resulted in an acquittal or mistrial.
- Seamon's sex-offender registration duty is governed by SORNA 1999, not SORNA 2013, and he must register as a lifetime registrant under SORNA 1999 upon release from incarceration.
Key quotations
“A confession is voluntary if it results from the free choice of á rational mind, if it is not a product of coercive police conduct, and if under all of the circumstances its admission would be fundamentally fair.” (¶ 18)
“Facts regarding uncharged criminal conduct may be considered during sentencing “in order to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the person to be sentenced.”” (¶ 24)
“Registration as a sex offender is not a component of a criminal sentence; rather, registration is a duty imposed statutorily upon a defendant because of a conviction for a sex offense.” (¶ 30)
Factual background
A plain-clothed detective interviewed Seamon outside a friend's home regarding allegations that he had sexually abused a child. Seamon chose the interview location, was told he would not be arrested that day, was not given Miranda warnings, and the detective did not display a weapon or make threats or promises. Seamon had reported depression, anxiety, and recent psychiatric treatment, but the suppression court found him coherent and in control and found no coercion. At trial, the child testified to several instances of sexual contact, and the sentencing court relied on three incidents in setting the basic sentence.
Procedural history
Seamon was convicted by a jury of unlawful sexual contact after the trial court denied his motion to suppress statements made during a police interview. The jury acquitted him of one gross-sexual-assault charge and could not reach a verdict on another, which resulted in a mistrial and later dismissal of that count. The trial court imposed a nine-year sentence, with all but six years suspended and twelve years of probation, and notified Seamon that he had to register under SORNA 2013. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment and sentence but clarified that Seamon's registration duty was governed by SORNA 1999.