State of Maine v. Loabe

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. CR-2020-429

STATE OF MAINE

V. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

GAVIN T. LOABE

INTRODUCTION
Before the court for resolution is the Defendant (Gavin Loabe 's) Motion to
Suppress statements made by him to detectives with the Waterville Police
Department on March 6, 2020. This matter was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing
on October 16, 2020. As the hearing was about to begin, however, the parties agreed
that the court could view and listen to the video recording of the interrogation
conducted by Detectives Damon Lefferts and Duane Cloutier, marked and admitted
into evidence as State's Exhibit 1. The court has viewed the recording in its entirety
and now makes the following factual findings .1
FINDINGS OF FACT
The video begins at 4:21:00. The Defendant can be seen entering the room at
4:22 in handcuffs. He was left alone in the room until 4:25:30 when Det. Cloutier
entered the room to give Loabe a cup of coffee. At 4:27:30, Det. Cloutier again
entered the room and removed the handcuffs from Loabe's wrists. Loabe was again
left alone in the room (with his head occasionally resting on the table) until 4:38:40

' The court was not able to view the video on its Judicial department issued laptop,
but was able to view it on its home desktop computer.
when the two detectives entered the room, at which point the sound on the video
began.
Det. Lefferts was dressed in a black shirt and initially took the lead in
questioning Loabe. Det. Cloutier was wearing a baseball cap and was seated just off
camera, sometimes partially in view. Lefferl.s and Loabe engaged in brief small
talk, with Loabe explaining that he is 18 years of age, lived in Mercer, and had not
graduated from high school but was attending or planning to attend Kennebec Valley
Community College. At 4:39:46, Loabe said: "Can I ask why I'm here?" Det.
Lefferts responded by asking Loabe whether he had heard about "the shooting," and
Loabe replied that he had. It is apparent that both men were referring to an incident
that happened the previous Friday, February 28, 2020, during which shots were fired
into a home on Summer Street in Waterville, one of which struck a 7 year-old-girl.
At 4:40, Det. Lefferts read Loabe the Miranda warnings line-by-line. Loabe
indicated that he understood each right, and at 4:41:37 he signed a waiver and agreed
to speak with the detectives. Lefferts began the conversation by asking Loabe why
he "thinks he is here," to which Loabe replied: "No idea." Lefferts asked what Loabe
knew about the shooting. Loabe said he had read an article "about a little girl getting
shot." Lefferts expressed the view that the shooting "seemed to be an accident," and
then asked Loabe to describe what he did and where he was the previous Friday (2­
28-2020).
Loabe said he had gone to visit his girlfriend, Lyric McCarthy, in Skowhegan
at around 11:30 a.m. They made a quick trip to the local Dunkin' store and then
returned to Lyric's trailer, where they spent the rest of the day together "chilling"
and watching Netflix. He said he left Lyric's place around 5:30 - 6:00 p.m. and
returned home, where he and Lyric did the same thing, i.e., watched Netflix. He said
he was driving his father's Toyota Tacoma and never went anywhere else that day.

2
At 4:47: 10, Lefferts again asked Loabe why he thinks he sitting in that "seat"
in the interview room. Loabe responded: "No clue." A few seconds later, Lefferts
brought up the name of Jeff Madore. Loabe responded by saying he did not know
Madore, had never met him and had only heard of him by reputation. A couple of
minutes later, Lefferts brought up the name of Thomas Vigue. Loabe denied
knowing him and further denied knowing that Lyric and Vigue might have dated in
the past.
At 4:54:43, Lefferts walked out of the room. He returned 30 seconds later
and asked Loabe to describe his father's truck. After leaving the room again,
Lefferts returned a few seconds later holding some photographs. Depicted in the
photographs was the truck Loabe was driving on February 28 , 2020. Lefferts asked
Loabe: "How is your truck in Waterville?" Loabe said: "I don't know." Lefferts's
tone became more confrontational at this point, as the photos appearred to show
Loabe' s truck in Waterville at or around the time of the shooting incident, when
Loabe had claimed he was with his girlfriend in Skowhegan.
At 4:57:49, Det. Cloutier spoke up and told Loabe: "Your story was planned."
Lefferts told Loabe he does not know whether "you were the driver or the actor."
Loabe said: "That's my story. I'm sticking with it. I'm speechless. I have no clue
how my truck got there."
Over the next few minutes, the detectives encouraged Loabe not to throw his
life away, that he's not a "shithead," that he has his whole life in front of him, and
that the shooting of the little girl was an "accident." When directly told that he was
"involved" in the shooting, Loabe denied it. (5:01:55). Det. Lefferts told Loabe that
he had the chance to choose the "good" path in the road, rather than the "criminal"
path, and that he'd be better off telling the truth. Loabe again said he was "sticking
to my first story," and that he did not know who took his truck. He acknowledged,

3
however, that it "doesn't look good for me." At 5:06:36, Lefferts walked out of the
room.
At 5:09:26, Cloutier left the room to get Loabe some water, and a couple of
minutes later Loabe left the interview room for a bathroom and smoke break. At
5: 16: 10, both detectives and Loabe were back in the room. Lcfferts asked Loabc to
start over and describe his activities on Friday, February 28, 2020. When Loabe said
that he was "sticking to the story," Lefferts told him he was "full of shit," and was
throwing his life away. Lefferts continued to urge Loabe to tell the truth and asked
what Loabe's father and grandfather were going to think. The two men argued back
and forth for several mor~ minutes, with Lefferts telling Loabe to think of his future,
'
and to own up to his mistakes, while Loabe told Lefferts that he was playing "mind
games" with him. When Lefferts asked if he needed more time to think about it,
Loabe said: "I don't know what to think. Just wondering when I get to go home."
(5:22:20). Lefferts went out of the room, leaving Cloutier alone with Loabe.
(5:24:34).
Loabe immediately asked: "What do you want?" Cloutier said: "The truth,
Gavin, the truth." (5:24:40) Loabe acknowledged that he didn't know "what to
think about that picture." Loabe asked: "What's going to happen if I give the truth?"
Cloutier replied that the truth would look "a lot better" when we 're talking to the
District Attorney. Loabe interrupted and said: "And I'm also going to be doing
time?" Cloutier said he did not know what the result was going to be, but he could
tell him that it would be a lot worse if you "totally lie about it." (5:25:01).
At 5:27, Loabe said: "If I said I did it, I'm going to be in cuffs to Kennebec."
Cloutier said: "I don't know what's going to happen, but it's better to be honest."
Cloutier also returned to the theme that Loabe' s father and grandfather would "do
the right thing." Loabe wanted to know whether the photos were the only pieces of
evidence the police had. Cloutier assured him that was not the case. Cloutier said

4
there were "lots of factors" that would determine what happened next, including
Loabe's honesty. On the other hand, Cloutier remarked, "lying is a mistake." (5:31)
At about this 5:32:39, Lefferts reentered the room with another photograph
and showed it to Loabe. Lefferts walked out of the room seconds later. Loabe asked:
"What's the worst that will happen to me?" Cloutier said that bail was "not out of
the realm of possibility." (5:34:39) Cloutier continued to encourage Loabe to be
honest with them so they could talk with the D.A. and be on Loabe's side.
Throughout this time, Cloutier generally told Loabe that it was better to be honest,
to get it off his chest, to think about what his father and grandfather would do, and
the longer it goes on, the worse it would get.
At about 5:39:21, Loabe made a comment about being charged with
something. Cloutier responded: "Yeah, being charged with something is one thing,
being convicted of something is another thing." At 5:39:34, Loabe said: "So, they're
sending me to Kennebec tonight or what?" Cloutier said: "No, man. We just want
to figure out what happened. A mistake was made." Cloutier continued to urge
Loabe to be honest so that "we can work with you. We can be in your comer with
the D.A."
This line of conversation continued for several minutes. At 5:42, Loabe said:
"I'm going to get fucked dude." Cloutier said: "No, you're not." Loabe said: "I
am." The detective asked Loabe if he believed in God, and assured him that while
everyone must answer for the mistakes they've made, "God forgives everyone, as
long as you're honest and truthful." (5:42:40) Loabe asked: "You know what's in
store for me?" The detective replied: "get ahead of it before it becomes something
you can't undo. Right now, you have the power to tell the truth. We'll be talking to
the D.A. about your honesty, because obviously there's going to be a time when you
go to court to answer to whatever charge it is, and it will be worse if you lie."
(5:44:30)

5
Loabe probed Cloutier to find out whether the police only had the pictures as
evidence. Cloutier said that was not true. At 5:46:40, Loabe said he was confused.
"I don't know what to do." Cloutier said: "It's easy to tell the truth. Do the right
thing."
At 5:47:34, Loabe said: 'Tm already going to county tonight." Cloutier said:
"I don't know what the end is going to be, but I know it's going to be a lot worse if
you continue to lie." At 5:48, Loabe said: "what if I told them I was the passenger,
I'd still be going to county." Cloutier said: "I believe you, I believe you. If you let
somebody drive your father's truck, be honest about it." At 5:48:22, Loabe told the
detective: "I was in the passenger seat."
Loabe then recounted the following version of events. He was a passenger
and did not fire a shot. He initially refused to give the name of any other person
involved. He said Lyric received a text message from Thomas Vigue asking her if
she wanted to have sex. Loabe saw the message and it upset him. He "hit up my
boy" to beat up Vigue. Loabe insisted that all he wanted to do was give Vigue an
"ass beating," but his unnamed accomplice had a gun and "the next thing I know,
pop, pop." Loabe claimed that he had no idea that the driver had a gun.
At 5:53, Loabe said: "that's as much information as I can give you." He said
the gun was thrown and he did not know where it was. Upon further questioning,
Loabe said he thought the gun was a "hi-point" that came from Macy Chesley. At
5:59, Loabe said the shooter was "Jeff." Loabe was unable to say where he picked
up Jeff, because he was unfamiliar with the Waterville area. Det. Cloutier was
dubious of this story and asked Loabe how it could be proven that Jeff was the
shooter as opposed to Loabe. Loabe claimed that he had heard that Jeff was a
"fighter" so he went over to Jeff's place unannounced and enlisted him to help him
beat up Thomas Vigue. According to Loabe, Jeff agreed and even offered to drive
Loabe's vehicle.

6
At 6:20:43, Cloutier left the room, leaving Loabe alone. At 6:27:22, another
smoke break was taken, which lasted until 6:32. At 6:33:43, Cloutier returned to the
room with another water for Loabe. At this time, it was only Cloutier with Loabe.
Det. Cloutier asked Loabe to "start right from the beginning. I want honesty." Loabe
at first declined to give any other names. When pressed by the detective, Loabe
admitted that "Jeff' was not involved at all. (6:43 - 6:44). Cloutier left the room
at 6:45:50. Det. Lefferts entered the room at 6:48. Loabe asked Lefferts if "I'm
going home tonight or am I going to Kennebec?" Lefferts did not directly answer
the question, but said he needed to make some calls and another detective needed to
talk with Loa be too. Lefferts said that he understood from Cloutier that Loabe was
"protecting" his "home boy" or something. Loabe insisted he "can't give names."
At 6:50, Det. Cloutier returned to the room.
Loabe continued to refuse to provide any names - "I can't do it. I'm not that
type of person." He said he was in the passenger seat and "my buddy was driving,"
but "I'm not going to give my boy up." Loabe also maintained that he had no
knowledge that his companion had a gun, or where the gun was. When asked who
owned the gun, Loabe said: "Tristan Boyer." (6:54:50).
Loabe continued to tell the detectives that he would not give up "my boy."
Cloutier left the room again at 6:57:00. Then at 6:57: 13, Loabe said: "I'm not giving
my boy up, so I pulled the trigger." Lefferts said: "Don't pull that shit with us. We
need to know what happened." Loabe said: "Dude, I pulled the trigger, let's get it
over with." Lefferts said: "That's not going to fly." Lefferts said that when the
police got ah old of the "other guy, he's gonna turn." Lefferts left the room again at
6:58: 14.
Cloutier re-entered the room at 6:59:29. Loabe immediately said to him: "Can
you put me in cuffs?" Loabe said: "I already said I did it." Cloutier said: I know
you said that. Tell me, if you did it, where's the gun?" Loabe said he did not know.

7
Cloutier asked for details because Loabe had told so many stories. Loabe
said: "I gotta tell different stories, and switch it up." Cloutier replied: "Don't do
that. You can tell the truth." At 7:00:40, Loabe said: "I'm going to get fucked, you
know that. I know that." Cloutier interjected: "If you are honest, it won't be as bad."
Loabe continued by saying: "I know I'm going to fucking county tonight. I'm just
waiting." The detective replied: "I want you to be 100% honest."
When Cloutier kept encouraging Loabe to provide truthful details of what
happened and how, Loabe just said: "Well, I said I did it." At 7:03:01, Loabe said:
"All I can say, I did it. Alone. That's what I got to say." Cloutier said: "No, that's
not what you got to say." When the detective said again: "If you did it, where's the
gun?" Loabe continued to say he did not know.
Loabe and the detective went back and forth again for several minutes in this
same vein, with Loabe insisting he would not "rat" out anyone, and Cloutier
exhorting him to be honest and tell the truth. At 7: 13:50, Loabe said: "I just want to
go home." The detective again said: "just do the right thing. Keeping lying is not
helpful." Loabe claimed that the reason he would not give up his "buddy's" name
was because he (the buddy) had a child and one on the way. (7:21 - 7:23).
At 7:29:05, Loabe said he wanted to tell the detectives the name of his
accomplice, "but I can't." Then, at 7:30: 11, Loabe asked: "What if I give you the
name?" The detective said: "I need 100% truth. Then I can go to the D.A., say it
was tough, but he told the truth." Loabe acknowledged that when he first walked
into the interview room, his "gut" told him to say nothing. He felt that his life was
already thrown away. The detective told him that was not true. Loabe said he
wanted to give the name, but was concerned that it would all come back on him in
court. The detective reminded Loabe that he had been read his rights at the
beginning and that he agreed to talk, and Loabe acknowledged that.

8
Another smoke break was taken at 7:35:55, which lasted until 7:42:40.
Cloutier wanted Loabe to start from the beginning and be 100% honest. At 7:44,
Loabe said that "Jeremiah" followed him out of Lyric 's trailer. They swapped places
on the way to Waterville. They made a stop along Kennedy Memorial Drive. Loabe
still said that his plan was to just fight Vigue. As they approached where they
thought Vigue lived, he told Jeremiah to pull over. But Jeremiah said "no" and fired
the shots. Again, Loabe said he did not know there was a gun involved and he did
not expect what actually happened. He also maintained that he did not know where
the gun was. He claimed that this version of events was "100% full honesty."
(7:58: 12).
At 7:59, Cloutier again offered Loabe food and water and left the room.
Cloutier was back in the room at 8:07:35 and then left again at 8:13:59. About ten
minutes later, one of the detectives told Loabe he could rest his head on the table if
he wanted to. Minutes later, Loabe got down on the floor to rest. The lights in the
room went out at 9: 17:03. Loabe left the room at 10:01: 3 8 and returned two minutes
later and again rested on the floor. At 10: 15:39, Sgt. Caron entered the room to
complete and serve Loabe with paperwork, including a charge of attempted murder. 2
The video ended at 10: 15:59.
DISCUSSION
Loabe contends that his statements to Detectives Lefferts and Cloutier should
be suppressed on the basis that they were not voluntary. Specifically, he maintains
that his statements were the product of improper inducements or promises of
leniency made by the detectives. He points particularly to that portion of the
interrogation when he questioned whether he would be taken to "Kennebec," i.e.,

' Loabe was subsequently indicted for one count of Elevated Aggravated Assault
(Class A) in violation of 17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(l)(B).,

9
the county jail, that night and the detective replied: "No, man. We just want to figure
out what happened." (5:39:34) He further argues that this "assurance" that he was
not going to the jail was confirmed when the detective disputed that he was "gonna
get fucked" and thereafter told him that God would forgive him. In combination
with his young age, his lack of a formal education and the overall circumstances of
the interrogation, Loabe asserts that the improper inducements made by the
detectives rendered his statements involuntary. Stated otherwise, he claims that the
State cannot meet its burden of showing the voluntariness of his statements beyond
a reasonable doubt.
In State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ~ 19, 151 A.3d 911, the Law Court clarified
the "distinction between those statements that must be excluded pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment because they are the product of compulsion, and those statements that
must be excluded because their admission would otherwise create an injustice." The
latter situation employs a due process analysis and seeks to address the question of
whether a defendant's "statements were free and voluntary or whether, considering
the totality of the circumstances under which the statements were made, their
admission would be fundamentally unfair." Id. The Court reaffirmed its holding in
State v. Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d 497, 500-01 (Me. 1983) that "[a] confession is
voluntary if it results from the free choice of a 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." See also State v. Williams, 2020 ME 128, ~ 43, _A.3d_.
The court must focus on "the totality of the State's actions in obtaining the
confession." Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ~ 21; State v. McConkie, 2000 ME 158, ~~ 4, 9,
755 A.2d 1075. A number of relevant factors may be considered by the court in
making the voluntariness assessment, including:
the details of the interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location
of the interrogation; whether the interrogation was custodial; the

10
recitation of Miranda warnings; the number of officers involved; the
persistence of the officers; police trickery; threats, promises or
inducements made to the defendant; and the defendant's age, physical
and mental health, emotional stability, and conduct.

State v. George, 2012 ME 64, ~ 21, 52 A.3d 903 .

It is the State's burden to demonstrate that a statement is voluntary beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Annis, 2018 ME 15, ~ 13,178 A.3d 467. State v. Collins,
297 A.2d 620, 626-27 (Me. 1972).
With specific reference to promises or inducements made to a suspect by
police, the Law Court has cautioned that "false promises of leniency that induce a
confession are improper and thus will weigh significantly into our consideration of
the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a confession must be
suppressed." Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ~ 29 (italicized language in original). The Court
provided guidance on this issue by defining a "false promise" as one that "involves
a benefit that could not be delivered - or is not in fact delivered - by the government
agent making the promise, or when the agent has no authority to give the defendant
what was offered. A promise involves leniency when it suggests that the process of
prosecution or sentencing will somehow be 'better' for the defendant if the defendant
confesses." Id. (citations omitted). On the other hand, generalized suggestions
and/or exhortations to tell the truth are not impermissible. Id. at~~ 23-24.
As noted above, the court must assess the totality of the circumstances in order
to make a judgment as to whether the State has proved the voluntariness of a
defendant's confession beyond a reasonable doubt. No one factor, in isolation,
necessarily controls that determination. After reviewing the DVD, and after
considering all of the circumstances in their entirety in this case, the court is satisfied
that the State has met its burden of proof.

11
As an initial matter, many of the factors pertinent to the voluntariness inquiry
are worthy of note here. The duration of the interview was almost 4 hours. It took
place at the police department, and Loabe was clearly in custody. Loabe was read
the Miranda warnings and agreed to waive his rights and speak with the detectives.
Two detectives were involved. While Lhe deleclives, most particularly Del. Lefferls,
were firm and persistent, they were not threatening or coercive towards Loabe. The
tone and tenor of the interview was forthright and direct. The detectives made it
clear that they thought Loabe was somehow involved in the shooting incident of
February 28, 2020. At times, Det. Lefferts confronted Loabe when he believed he
was not telling the truth. Nevertheless, the detectives generally treated Loabe
respectfully. The Defendant was 18 years of age, but not a high school graduate. He
_appeared to be in good physical condition. Nothing in the recording suggests that
Loabe suffered from any .mental illness or disability or was emotionally unstable or
particularly vulnerable at the time of the interrogation. Loabe was coherent, lucid
and quite capable of understanding the questions posed to him by the detectives, and
giving the answers he wanted to give at the time. Although at a few points during
the interview he said that he was "confused," this appeared to be due to the fact that
he had told the detectives a variety of different stories
The court finds no impropriety in the appeal to Loabe to consider what his
father and grandfather would do under the same circumstances. While this tactic
was clearly intended to play on Loabe's emotional attachment to his father and
grandfather, it was, in essence, an admonition to Loabe to tell the truth and take
responsibility for his own conduct.
The primary area of dispute is whether the detectives made false promises of
leniency to Loabe that induced him to confess or make incriminating statements.
In the court's view, the statements made by the detectives must be considered
in the context of the entire interview. Loa be focuses on an isolated remark by Det.

12
Cloutier in response to his question: "So, they're sending to Kennebec tonight or
what?" The detective replied: "No, man. We just want to figure out what happened.
A mistake was made." In support of his motion to suppress, Loabe points to this
language as amounting to a promise that if he confessed he would not go to the
county jail. But viewed in context, the detective's response did not constitute such
. .
an improper promise.
The entire thrust of the interrogation was to determine what happened, why it
happened and what role Loabe played in the incident of February 28, 2020.
Throughout the interview, the detectives constantly entreated Loabe to tell the truth
because, among other things, it was the "right thing to do." Det. Cloutier's almost
reflexive response - "No, man, we just want to figure out what happened. A mistake
was made" - cannot reasonably be understood as any type of promise at all. Rather,
the detective was trying to re-focus Loabe to the importance of being truthful.
Viewed in isolation, and out of the context of the entire 4-hour interview, the remark
"No, man" can be argued to imply that the detective was telling Loabe that he was
not going to "Kennebec" that night. But viewed in its rightful context, the remark
was not a promise but a statement to Loabe that he needed to focus on telling the
truth and not the immediate consequence of whether he was going to jail that night.
That this is the proper interpretation of the detective's remark is supported by
the fact that Loabe made several subsequent references to going to "county," and
made it clear to the detectives that he knew he was going to jail that night. In other
words, Loabe did not understand the remark as any type of promise by the detective.
And it is noteworthy that whenever Loabe brought up the subject of going to jail that
night, the detectives merely responded by telling him he needed to be honest and
truthful. In short, the detective's remark was not a "concrete promise of leniency."
State v. Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, ~ 57, 1 A.3d 445; State v. McNaughton, 2017 ME
173,~37.

13
Finally, the court is satisfied that the remark "No, man," did not motivate or
induce Loabe to confess. This is not a situation like the ones in Wiley, Hunt and
Tardiff, where the defendant was highly vulnerable and/or emotionally fragile and
was primarily focused on a specific promise of leniency. Loabe did not structure his
confession/statements in order to fit within some perceived promise by the
detectives. On the contrary, at various times during the questioning, Loabe asked:
"What if I said" this or "What if I said" that? Each time he did so, the detectives
responded by telling him to be "100% honest." This case is more like State v.
McNaughton, 2017 ME 173, ~~ 36-37, 168 A.3d 807, than those cases where a law
enforcement officer made specific promises of leniency that "jeopardized the
voluntary nature of a defendant's statements." Compare Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ~~ 4­
10, 41-44; State v. Wiley, 2013 ME 30, ~ 21, 61 A.3d 750; State v. Tardiff, 374 A.2d
598, 600-01 (Me. 1977).
The court finds that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Loab's statements were the result of a rational mind, were not the product of coercive
police conduct and, under all the circumstances, their admission would be
fundamentally fair.
CONCLUSION
The entry is: Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

Dated: November 16, 2020
\

Justice, Superior Court

14