The state Supreme Court has upheld a Johnston woman's conviction for shooting her girlfriend to death in 2014, rejecting arguments that evidence, including the gun, should have been excluded because Providence detectives repeatedly violated her right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning.

PROVIDENCE — The state Supreme Court has upheld a Johnston woman's conviction for shooting her girlfriend to death in 2014, rejecting arguments that evidence, including the gun, should have been excluded because Providence detectives repeatedly violated her right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during questioning.

While the high court chastised detectives for failing to honor Sendra Beauregard's request for a lawyer, the court refused to reverse her conviction for fatally shooting 50-year-old Pamela Donahue after the couple had an argument Dec. 1, 2014. Beauregard, 36, is serving consecutive life sentences for second-degree murder and discharging a firearm while committing a crime of violence.

Beauregard challenged Superior Court Judge Susan E. McGuirl's decision allowing the firearm as evidence, given state prosecutors' concessions that three of four statements she made to police must be excluded because police violated her rights by continuing to question her after she asked for a lawyer.

The high court cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent that dictates that suppression of evidence is not necessary if a suspect's statements are voluntary, even if the individual has not been properly apprised of his or her rights. The U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that excluding the actual unwarned statement is sufficient to remedy any violation of a suspect's Miranda rights.

The state justices rejected Beauregard's request to follow the lead of other states and extend broader rights against self-incrimination under the Rhode Island Constitution. The court, too, rejected arguments that Beauregard's statements were involuntary due to mental illness and police coercion.

"We ... note that, here, the state was at an extreme disadvantage in not being able to use defendant’s confession at trial due to the police officers’ failure to lawfully react to defendant’s request for counsel," Justice Gilbert Indeglia wrote for the court. "We wish to make clear our grave disapproval of the conduct of the police in this matter and their repeated failure to respect defendant’s request for counsel."

According to the ruling, Detectives William Corrigan and Carlos Sical continued to question Beauregard following her arrest, even after she repeatedly asked for her lawyer. Corrigan testified at a suppression hearing that he knew he was legally required to stop questioning Beauregard after she made the request, but that he continued, hoping to elicit information, the ruling states.

In that same interview, detectives misled her by saying without evidence that a shell casing found in her car matched the bullet taken from Donahue's body. Beauregard told them repeatedly that was impossible. The high court upheld McGuirl's determination that police did not violate Beauregard's rights by misstating facts about the bullets.

Later that night, Beauregard asked to speak again with detectives. Sgt. Fabio Zuena and Sical questioned her. Again, she referenced her lawyer, the ruling states. Eventually, she admitted killing Donahue and burying the gun in Scituate.

She guided Detectives Jason Simoneau and Corrigan to the gun and ammunition in a fourth interview the next day, again without being read her rights, the ruling states.

John Grasso, a former Cranston police officer turned lawyer, disagreed with the court's ruling allowing the firearm into evidence.

"If the police break the law and they violate an accused's rights against self-incrimination, then the physical evidence that's the yield from the unlawful conduct should be excluded," Grasso said. "I think our Supreme Court should have broadened our own constitutional protections against self-incrimination."

He continued: "The U.S. Supreme Court made it easy for this to happen." Given the ruling in Beauregard, "Why should these two detectives do anything different?" Grasso asked.

Providence Police Chief Col. Hugh T. Clements Jr. said he was pleased that Beauregard's conviction was upheld.

"We take the opinion of the Supreme Court seriously and constantly monitor these types of critiques and review them to improve our operations," Clements said. "These were technical violations not in exact compliance with Miranda addressed in the ruling. None of the statements were ruled to be coercive in nature and all statements related to the recovery of the murder weapon and ammunition were ruled voluntary."

He praised Providence detectives: "I commend the tireless work of Providence Police Detectives who investigate these major crime cases that are often times fluid and complicated.”