Title: Roth v. State

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD ROTH, JR.,
§
§  No. 382, 2000
Defendant Below,
§
Appellant,
§  Court Below—Superior Court
§  of the State of Delaware,
v.
§  in and for New Castle County
§  IN No. 99010000330
STATE OF DELAWARE,
§
§
Plaintiff Below,
§
Appellee.
§
  Submitted:  September 17, 2001
     Decided:  December 21, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
Upon appeal from the Superior Court.  AFFIRMED.
Jerome Capone, Esquire (argued) and Kevin J. O’Connell, Esquire,
of Wilmington, Delaware, for appellant.
Timothy J. Donovan, Jr., Esquire and Thomas E. Brown, Esquire
(argued), Department of Justice, of Wilmington, Delaware, for appellee.
HOLLAND, Justice:
2
This is an appeal by the defendant-appellant, Richard Roth, Jr.
(“Roth, Jr.”), who along with three codefendants was charged with
nineteen crimes involving three different robberies.  The most serious
charge was Murder in the First Degree, relating to the death of Jaime
Antunez, who was one of the robbery victims.  Mr. Antunez owned and
operated the J & R Grocery Store in Newport, Delaware.  The other two
robbery locations were the Newport Family Restaurant and Bob’s Adult
Bookstore on Route 13 in New Castle County.
Prior to trial, James Anderson, one of the codefendants, entered into
a plea agreement.  The plea bargain spared James Anderson from the
possibility of the death penalty but required the imposition of a life
sentence.  James Anderson also agreed to testify “truthfully” for the State
at the trial of Roth, Jr. and the other codefendants.
Roth, Jr. was the first of the remaining three defendants to go to
trial, with the State seeking an imposition of the death penalty.1  During the
guilt phase, Roth, Jr. was convicted of the Murder in the First Degree
charge and all counts relating to the robberies involving the J & R Grocery
                                   
1 The State elected to try the remaining three codefendants separately.
3
Store and Bob’s Adult Bookstore.  Roth, Jr. was acquitted of all counts
relating to the robbery at the Newport Family Restaurant.
Since this was a capital case, Roth, Jr.’s trial then proceeded to the
penalty phase.  After hearing all the evidence presented for and against the
imposition of a death sentence, the jury returned a 9-3 vote that the
mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors.  The Superior Court
imposed a life sentence on Roth, Jr. for the Murder in the First Degree
conviction and imposed substantial terms of imprisonment for the other
convictions.
Issues on Appeal
Roth, Jr. has raised three issues in this direct appeal.  First, he
alleges that the trial judge committed an error of law in deciding that the
11 Del. C. § 3507 statement of a State’s witness, Theresa Anderson, was
given voluntarily and, therefore, was admissible evidence.  Second, he
contends that the trial judge erred in denying a motion to suppress the
statement that he made to Detective Corrigan after being taken into
custody.  Finally, Roth, Jr. claims that the trial judge erred in allowing the
State to introduce into evidence the fact that he had a large tattoo of a
pistol across his back with the words “No Limit” tattooed underneath.
4
We have carefully considered each of Roth, Jr.’s arguments.  We
have concluded that each of the trial judge’s rulings were correct.
Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.
Facts
Roth, Jr. and three codefendants were charged in connection with a
series of robberies occurring in the Newport and Stanton area in December
1998.  The codefendants were Richard Roth, Sr., James Anderson and
Moises Ordorica.2  The first robbery occurred on December 22, 1998 at
the Newport Family Restaurant.  The owner of the restaurant, Maria
Perdikis, was robbed as she closed the business and walked to her car with
the night deposit bag.  An armed robber, wearing a mask and gloves,
grabbed her from behind and threatened to kill her if she did not give him
the deposit bag.  The robber discharged pepper spray into Perdikis’ face,
and she fell to the ground.  The robber then discharged pepper spray into
Perdikis’ face again.  She heard a second man say, “What are you doing?”
The robbers fled with the night deposit bag containing approximately
$3,000.  Perdikis later told the investigating police officer that she had
                                   
2 Ordorica identified J & R Grocery Store as a good prospect for a robbery and told his
codefendants how to say, in Spanish, the words that would convey that they were
conducting a robbery.  He did not participate in the actual robbery.
5
seen three men in the bushes that night but did not remember that statement
at trial.  
The second robbery occurred on December 26, 1998 at Bob’s Adult
Bookstore on Route 13.  At about 10:00 p.m., the manager of the
bookstore, Mitchell Watson, stepped outside to investigate the possibility
of a break in the cable line since the television had gone blank and the
credit card machine stopped functioning.  When Watson opened the door, a
man entered the store and said, “Hi Mitch.”  When Watson turned around,
the man was wearing a mask and pointed a gun at Watson’s face.  The
gunman ordered Watson to step away from the door.  A second masked
robber entered holding a shotgun.  The two gunmen in the store
communicated with a third person outside by using a walkie-talkie. The
robbers fled with approximately $3,000 and several coffee cans that each
contained approximately $100 in quarters or tokens.  Mitchell provided a
description of the two gunmen to the police. That description, and the
descriptions given by other witnesses, was consistent with Roth, Jr. and
James Anderson.
The most serious offense occurred during the third armed robbery on
New Year’s Eve 1998 at the J & R Grocery Store on East Newport Pike.
6
The owner of the store, Jaime Antunez, was working inside the shop with
his sister, Marisela Rodriguez.  Two gunmen wearing ski masks entered
the store.  One was armed with a .38 caliber revolver.  The other was
armed with a sawed-off shotgun and a semiautomatic handgun.
As Antunez struggled with one of the robbers, that gunman’s
weapon discharged twice.  One shot struck that gunman in the hand and the
other shot grazed his head.  The second robber returned from a back room
and fired several shots at Antunez with the semiautomatic handgun.  The
robbers took money from the cash register, exited the grocery store and
entered a getaway car driven by a third person.  Antunez survived for
fifty-five days before dying from an infection and pneumonia caused by the
gunshot wounds that were inflicted during the armed robbery.
A customer arrived at the J & R Grocery Store during the course of
the robbery.  He could see the masked gunmen inside and did not enter.
He provided a description of the gunmen to police.  The police found a
sawed-off shotgun at the crime scene with a white wood stock and tape on
the handle.
7
State’s Trial Evidence
The State’s evidence at trial established that the three men who
robbed the J & R Grocery Store had come from and returned to James
Anderson’s residence in Newport where he lived with his wife, Theresa
Anderson.  Roth, Jr. went to the Andersons’ residence, on New Year’s
Eve with his mother, Patricia Roth, and his father, Roth, Sr.  Several other
social guests came and went to the Andersons’ home throughout the course
of the evening.
In a taped statement to the police, Theresa Anderson said that, on
New Year’s Eve, she saw her husband depart together with Roth, Sr. and
Roth, Jr. and return together with them that evening.  When they returned,
her husband was staggering and bleeding profusely from his head and
hand.  Roth, Sr. told Theresa Anderson to have her daughter Brittany
removed from the house.  Theresa Anderson said that Roth, Jr. was
“flipping out.”  Roth, Jr. said “‘The mother f…er wouldn’t drop.’  He said
he shot him like four or five times and he finally had to kick him over.”
Theresa Anderson stated that when the three men returned to her house,
her husband, James Anderson, did not have a gun; Roth, Sr. had a
revolver; and Roth, Jr. had a semiautomatic handgun.  Theresa Anderson
8
helped care for her husband’s wounds and also cleaned blood off of Roth,
Jr.’s gun and money stolen in the robbery.  Roth, Jr. hid his gun under the
Andersons’ couch that evening.  He retrieved the gun on the following
day.
Theresa Anderson’s tape-recorded account to the police was
corroborated by other guests at the Andersons’ residence, including
Patricia Roth’s initial statement to police.3  Paul Ciccaglione was present at
the Andersons’ residence on New Year’s Eve waiting for his girlfriend,
Lisa Laskowski, to pick him up.  They left briefly to visit Ciccaglione’s
cousin and returned.  According to Ciccaglione, when they left, the three
Roths, including Roth, Jr., were at the Andersons’ residence.
Ciccaglione and Laskowski returned to the Andersons’ house a short
time later.  When they returned, Roth, Sr., Roth, Jr. and James Anderson
were absent.  Following a knock on the door, Ciccaglione was asked to
take Brittany away from the house.4  As he left to take Brittany to his
cousin’s house, Ciccaglione saw one of the Roths standing by a car.
                                   
3 Patricia Roth, however, later changed her account of the events.  In fact, at trial,
Patricia Roth testified that her son, Roth, Jr. was not present at the Andersons’
residence on New Year’s Eve 1998.
4 Laskowski also heard the knock on the door and accompanied Brittany and
Ciccaglione back to his cousin’s house.  Laskowski, however, did not return to the
Andersons’ residence.
9
Ciccaglione testified that when he returned to the Andersons’
residence after leaving Brittany at his cousin’s house, he saw clothes, ski
masks and blood everywhere.  Roth, Jr. was acting nervous, taking off his
clothes and throwing things in a bag.  He noticed that Roth, Jr. had a head
injury and that James Anderson had an injury to his hand.  Theresa
Anderson told Ciccaglione that there had been a robbery, James Anderson
had been shot and Roth, Jr. may have killed a man.
On the day after the robbery of the J & R Grocery Store, Holly
Schmitt received a telephone call from her long time friends, the
Andersons.  At Theresa Anderson’s request, Schmitt proceeded
immediately to the Andersons’ residence. They told her there had been a
robbery and that someone had been shot.  Schmitt could not recall the
names of James Anderson’s accomplices, only that they were a father and
son.  The older man had driven the car and the younger man had gone
inside.  When Schmitt saw the mess at the Andersons’ residence, she
cleaned up some of the bloody materials and threw them in a bag.  She
also picked up and discarded some of the other items.  Schmitt then took
James and Theresa Anderson to Massachusetts.
10
On January 1, 1999, the police received an anonymous tip that
James Anderson had been involved in the J & R Grocery Store robbery,
during which he had been injured, and that he had fled to Massachusetts.
The police obtained and executed a search warrant on the Andersons’
residence.  They found numerous items related to the robberies, including
two empty Wilmington Trust deposit bags, nineteen coffee cans some of
which contained tokens from Bob’s Adult Bookstore, a pair of Motorola
two-way radios, boxes containing .38 caliber ammunition, an empty box of
Remington shotgun shells, ski masks, camouflage pants and a bloody
washcloth.
On January 3, 1999, James Anderson was apprehended in East
Hampton, Massachusetts while he sat drinking in a bar with his wife,
Theresa.  He had a .38 caliber revolver in his possession.  Delaware State
Police dispatched two detectives, Detectives Dan Bramble and Vincent
Fiscella, to East Hampton to interview James Anderson.  He gave them a
statement confessing to the three robberies in question.  He implicated
Roth, Sr. and Roth, Jr. as his accomplices.  He stated that Roth, Jr. was
the person who shot Antunez.  Theresa Anderson was also questioned and
11
made a statement, which corroborated her husband’s statement in many
respects.
After James Anderson implicated Roth, Sr. and Roth, Jr. in the
robberies, the police executed search warrants on several motel rooms and
a storage locker located in Stanton, Delaware.  In the storage locker,
which was leased in the name of Roth, Jr. and his girlfriend, the police
discovered a shotgun similar to the one observed at the J & R Grocery
Store, a box of .38 caliber ammunition and a gun cleaning kit.  An Isuzu
Rodeo automobile owned by Roth, Sr. was also searched.  DNA analysis
revealed that the blood of both James Anderson and the victim, Antunez,
was inside the vehicle.  DNA analysis also identified blood samples
recovered from the grocery store with both the victim, Antunez, and James
Anderson.
At the J & R Grocery Store, police recovered five .38 caliber shell
casings, all of which came from the same semiautomatic handgun.  The
police did not recover the semiautomatic handgun but confirmed that the
shell casings did not come from James Anderson’s .38 caliber handgun.
The police also recovered five bullets or bullet fragments during the course
12
of the investigation.  Two of the fragments were recovered from the crime
scene and three others were removed from the victim, Antunez.
Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, James Anderson testified at
Roth, Jr.’s trial. According to James Anderson, he and three accomplices
planned to rob the J & R Grocery Store.  Moises Ordorica, the fourth
codefendant, taught them certain Spanish phrases for use in the robbery,
provided information about the store and received a share of the robbery
proceeds.  James Anderson’s testimony provided a detailed account of the
armed robbery and murder at the J & R Grocery Store.
According to James Anderson, Roth, Sr. and Roth, Jr. left his
residence together.  Roth, Sr. remained in the getaway car and drove back
to the residence afterward.  James Anderson, armed with a .38 caliber
handgun, and Roth, Jr., armed with a shotgun and a semiautomatic
handgun, put on masks and entered the grocery store.  James Anderson
focused on Antunez while Roth, Jr. focused on Rodriguez and went to the
back of the store searching for a safe.  When he and Antunez struggled,
James Anderson’s gun discharged twice, hitting Anderson.  James
Anderson saw Antunez collapse after Roth, Jr. shot him several times.
13
James Anderson also implicated Roth, Sr. and Roth, Jr. in the other
robberies.
The jury convicted Roth, Jr. of the charges associated with the
armed robbery, the murder at the J & R Grocery Store and the robbery of
Bob’s Adult Bookstore.  The jury, however, did not convict Roth, Jr. of
the charges relating to the robbery of the Newport Family Restaurant.
Theresa’s Section 3507 Statement Voluntary
At trial, Theresa Anderson was called as a State’s witness.  Her
testimony at trial did not conform to the tape-recorded statement she made
to Detective Fiscella in Massachusetts on the day of her husband’s arrest.
The State then sought to introduce her tape-recorded statement into
evidence.5  Roth, Jr.’s defense counsel objected to any use of the statement
at trial on the basis that it had not been given voluntarily.
The trial judge then permitted voir dire examination of Theresa
Anderson and Detective Fiscella on the issue of voluntariness.  Theresa
Anderson was questioned first about her statement to Detective Fiscella.
When asked why she made the statement, she gave three reasons:  her
husband wanted her to make the statement, she wanted to cooperate so the
                                   
5 See 11 Del. C. § 3507.
14
police would let her see her husband and Detective Fiscella threatened to
take her daughter away from her if she refused to make a statement.
Although Theresa Anderson stated that Detective Fiscella threatened
to take her child from her if she refused to make a statement, she did not
elaborate on this threat and was unable to remember the words Detective
Fiscella used.  She did testify, however, that she would not have made the
statement had that threat not been made.  On cross-examination, the State
demonstrated that although Theresa Anderson expressed concern for the
welfare of her daughter, who she had left in Delaware, she could not
remember with whom her daughter was staying.
During his voir dire examination, Detective Fiscella denied making
any threat.  He testified that he was unaware that Theresa Anderson had a
daughter until she mentioned a concern about her daughter’s welfare
during the interview.  On cross-examination, Roth, Jr.’s defense counsel
pointed out that James Anderson had previously told Detective Fiscella he
had a daughter.
The trial judge resolved the credibility conflict by accepting the
testimony of Detective Fiscella.  The trial judge noted that Theresa
Anderson’s testimony contained certain inconsistencies.  First, she testified
15
she gave the statement so she would be allowed to see her husband, but
also testified that her husband wanted her to make the statement, indicating
she had been in contact with him.  Second, she expressed concern for her
daughter’s welfare but was unable to recall with whom she had entrusted
her care when fleeing to Massachusetts with her husband.  Although
Detective Fiscella’s testimony was not without its own inconsistencies, the
trial judge concluded that Detective Fiscella’s only concern with
interviewing the Andersons was about investigating the crimes and not the
Andersons’ family relationships.
Section 3507 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n a criminal
prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is
present and subject to cross-examination may be used as affirmative
evidence with substantive independent testimonial value.”  The trial judge
concluded that Theresa Anderson’s testimony regarding Detective
Fiscella’s threat was not credible.  Therefore, the trial judge found her
tape-recorded statement to Detective Fiscella to be voluntary and
admissible into evidence.
Roth, Jr.’s first argument on appeal is that this ruling was not
supported by competent evidence because James Anderson had told
16
Detective Fiscella that he had a daughter before Detective Fiscella
interviewed Theresa Anderson.  Thus, according to Roth, Jr., Detective
Fiscella lied when he testified that he did not know that Theresa Anderson
had a daughter until she told him so during the interview.  Consequently,
Roth, Jr. contends that the trial judge erred by accepting the truth of
Detective Fiscella’s testimony that he never threatened to take Theresa
Anderson’s daughter away from her if she did not make a statement.
The State bears the burden of proving voluntariness by a
preponderance of the evidence.  In Martin v. State, this Court stated the
following:
The State’s burden is to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that under the “totality of circumstances” the
witness’ statements were the product of a rational mind and
free will.  The trial judge must focus his [or her] attention on .
. . the behavior of the interrogators, as well as the
mental/physical makeup of the individual being interrogated,
to determine whether the individual’s will was so overborne
that the statements produced were not the product of a rational
intellect and free will.6
The record reflects the trial judge acknowledged that arguably
Detective Fiscella should have inferred from James Anderson’s statement
that his daughter was also Theresa Anderson’s daughter.  The trial judge
17
concluded, however, that Detective Fiscella’s attention during the
interview with James Anderson was focused on investigating the crimes
and not on his family relationships.  Accordingly, when Detective Fiscella
testified that he did not realize Theresa Anderson had a daughter until she
told him this during the interview, the trial judge was not required to
conclude that Detective Fiscella was lying.  Rather, the trial judge could
properly determine, as he did, since that information was not significant to
Detective Fiscella, it had not registered with Detective Fiscella when it was
related to him by James Anderson.
The issue presented to the trial judge was not whether Detective
Fiscella knew or should have known about Theresa Anderson’s daughter
before he interviewed her but whether he threatened to take her daughter
away from her should she refuse to make a statement and, thereby, caused
her statement to be involuntary.  The trial judge was the sole judge of the
credibility of both witnesses testimony during voir dire and was responsible
for resolving conflicts in their` testimony.7  The record reflects that the
trial judge performed this function in a careful and principled manner.  In
                                                                                                         
6 Martin v. State, Del. Supr., 433 A.2d 1025, 1032 (1981); see State v. Rooks, Del.
Supr., 401 A.2d 943, 948-49 (1979).
7 Coleman v. State, Del. Supr., 562 A.2d 1171, 1177 (1989) (citing Tyre v. State, Del.
Supr., 412 A.2d 326, 330 (1980)).
18
addition to hearing the live testimony of Theresa Anderson and Detective
Fiscella, the trial judge listened to Theresa Anderson’s tape-recorded
statement.  The trial judge concluded that Detective Fiscella’s testimony
was more credible than the testimony of Theresa Anderson.
This Court will not disturb findings of fact made by a trial judge
when those factual determinations are supported by competent evidence.8
In this case, the record reflects that the trial judge’s credibility
determinations are supported by competent evidence.  Consequently, the
trial judge’s ruling that Theresa Anderson’s Section 3507 statement was
voluntary is affirmed.
Nevertheless, Roth, Jr. argues that, even if Theresa Anderson’s
statement was voluntary, the admission of her Section 3507 statement into
evidence violated his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment
because that statement did not bear “particularized guarantees of
trustworthiness” and did not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.
This claim is without merit because the declarant, Theresa Anderson, was
a witness at trial and available for cross-examination.  Out-of-court
statements are required to be inherently trustworthy only when the
                                   
8 Martin v. State, 433 A.2d at 1033.
19
declarant is not available to testify and are admitted solely pursuant to a
hearsay exception.9  The decision of the trial judge to admit Theresa
Anderson’s Section 3507 statement into evidence is affirmed.10
Roth, Jr.’s Statement Admissible
Roth, Jr. filed a pretrial motion to suppress a statement that he made
while in the custody of Detective Corrigan.  A suppression hearing was
held at which Detective Corrigan, Detective Morris and Roth, Jr. testified.
Detective Corrigan testified that on the morning of January 4, 1999, he
was asked by Sergeant Lawrence to transport Roth, Jr. from Troop 2 to the
Gander Hill Prison.  Detective Corrigan testified that he was informed that
Roth, Jr. had been advised of his Miranda11 rights and had invoked those
rights during questioning by Detective Morris.
Detective Corrigan then drove Roth, Jr. to the prison.  The prison
officials would not accept Roth, Jr., however, unless he first received
medical attention because he had a wound on his head.  Detective Corrigan
drove Roth, Jr. back to Troop 2 and then to the Christiana Hospital.
                                   
9 White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356-57 (1992); Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 819
(1990).
10 See State v. Rooks, Del. Supr., 411 A.2d 316, 316-17 (1980).
11 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
20
According to Detective Corrigan, he and Roth, Jr. engaged in “small
talk” during the ride, but Detective Corrigan did not ask Roth, Jr. any
questions.  Detective Corrigan testified that on the way to the hospital,
Roth, Jr. asked what charges had been lodged against him.  Detective
Corrigan told Roth, Jr. that he was charged with robbery and attempted
murder.  Roth, Jr. asked from what source the police received their
information.  In reply, Detective Corrigan pulled his patrol car over to the
side of the road and either showed or read Roth, Jr. that portion of the
warrant affidavit indicating that James Anderson had implicated him in the
crimes.  Detective Corrigan testified that Roth, Jr. made no reply at that
time.  At the hospital, however, Roth, Jr. asked to see the warrant affidavit
again.  According to Detective Corrigan, Roth, Jr. then stated, “That’s the
problem anymore, there’s no loyalty.”
Roth, Jr. testified at the suppression hearing on his own behalf.
According to Roth, Jr., Detective Corrigan taunted him with the fact that
James Anderson informed on him and then told him that both Anderson
and his father were going to turn on him, saying, “They have no loyalty
for you, they have loyalty for each other.”  Roth, Jr. testified that he
replied, “What’s loyalty have to do with me and them?”  He denied
21
making the “loyalty” statement that Detective Corrigan attributed to him.
Roth, Jr. also testified that he had told Detective Corrigan he did not want
to talk to him and had invoked his right to counsel before Detective
Morris.
To rebut Roth, Jr.’s assertion that he had invoked his right to
counsel, Detective Morris was called to testify at the suppression hearing
as a prosecution witness.  Detective Morris testified that he questioned
Roth, Jr. at Troop 2 on the morning of January 4, 1999 and informed
Roth, Jr. of his Miranda rights.  Roth, Jr. then made a statement denying
any involvement in the crimes.  According to Detective Morris, Roth, Jr.
never invoked his right to counsel or to remain silent.
The trial judge found the testimony of Detective Corrigan to be more
credible than that of Roth, Jr.  Therefore, the trial judge denied Roth, Jr.’s
motion to suppress the “loyalty” statement at the hospital that was
attributed to him by Detective Corrigan.  Roth, Jr.’s secondary argument
in the Superior Court and on appeal is that, even if he made the statement,
the trial judge erred by not suppressing the statement because it was made
in response to interrogation by Detective Corrigan after Roth, Jr. had
previously invoked his right to remain silent with Detective Morris.
22
The trial judge assumed, without deciding that Roth, Jr. had invoked
his Miranda rights, in light of the conflict in the testimony of Detective
Corrigan and Detective Morris on that point.  The trial judge then ruled
that nothing Detective Corrigan said to Roth, Jr. amounted to interrogation
within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona12 and its progeny.  The trial
judge specifically rejected the defense contention that this case was
factually similar to Brewer v. Williams,13 the Christian burial case.
Once Roth, Jr. had invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda,
the police could not question him unless he initiated the contact with the
police and Miranda warnings were re-administered.14  Assuming that Roth,
Jr. invoked his rights at Troop 2, the issue on appeal is whether the trial
judge correctly ruled that Detective Corrigan’s conduct did not constitute
interrogation or its functional equivalent.  Since the trial judge found Roth,
Jr.’s version of what happened not to be credible, the legal issue must be
examined in accordance with Detective Corrigan’s version of the facts.15
According to Detective Corrigan, he engaged Roth, Jr. in small talk
on the way to the hospital.  It was Roth, Jr., however, who first broached
                                   
12 Id.
13 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977).
14 See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981).
15 Coleman v. State, Del. Supr., 562 A.2d 1171, 1177 (1989).
23
the subject of the crimes by asking about the charges and the source of the
police information.  When Roth, Jr. first learned that James Anderson was
the source of the information, Roth, Jr. said nothing.  It was only later, at
the hospital, when he asked to see the warrant affidavit again that Roth, Jr.
made the “loyalty” statement attributed to him by Detective Corrigan.
The State submits that if Roth, Jr. said nothing when he first learned
of his informer’s identity, Detective Corrigan had no reason to believe that
showing Roth, Jr. the affidavit a second time, upon Roth, Jr.’s request,
would provoke any type of response.  The State argues that the facts of this
case are similar to the facts described by this Court in Johnson v. State.16
In Johnson, the defendant, upon arrest, indicated to the police that he did
not want to make a statement and was never administered Miranda
warnings.  A police officer then took him to a Justice of the Peace Court
for presentment.  While waiting, the defendant asked the officer how the
police knew to follow his vehicle.  When the officer responded with an
explanation, the defendant made an incriminating comment.17  In Johnson,
this Court upheld the trial judge’s “factual determination” that the officer’s
                                   
16 Johnson v. State, Del. Supr., No. 12, 1999, 1999 WL 1098173, Holland, J. (Nov. 2,
1999)(ORDER).
17 Id. at 5.
24
answer to the defendant’s question was not designed to provoke a response
and, therefore, did not constitute interrogation or its functional
equivalent.18
In this case, the trial judge ruled that Roth, Jr.’s statement to
Detective Corrigan at the hospital was not the product of interrogation or
its functional equivalent.  The trial judge properly applied this Court’s
holding in Johnson to the facts of Roth, Jr.’s case.  The trial judge
correctly determined that Detective Corrigan’s actions were not an
interrogation within contemplation of Miranda and its progeny.  The trial
judge’s decision to admit Roth, Jr.’s statement to Detective Corrigan into
evidence is affirmed.
Tattoo Evidence Admissible
The State introduced into evidence a tape recording of Roth, Jr.’s
initial statement to Detective Morris, in which he said that he did not like
guns.  The State then called Roth, Jr.’s former girlfriend to testify that
Roth, Jr. had a large tattoo of a pistol across his back, along with the
words “No Limit.”  The defense’s objection to this evidence, as being
irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, was overruled.
                                   
18 Id. at 9.
25
In this appeal, Roth, Jr. again argues the fact that he had a pistol
tattooed on his back along with the words “No Limit” was of no relevance
to the question of his guilt or innocence.  The record reflects that the
testimony describing the tattoo was advanced by the State in the context of
countering Roth, Jr.’s statement to police that he had an aversion to guns.
The State submitted that Roth, Jr.’s tattoo depicting a gun with the phrase
“No Limit” stood in obvious contrast to his self-expressed disdain for guns
in his statement to police.19  Thus, the State elicited testimony describing
the tattoo to establish that Roth, Jr. had lied to police about an aversion to
guns.
The State’s effort to rebut Roth, Jr.’s statement that he was adverse
to possessing a gun, in the context of an armed robbery and murder, was
entirely proper.  The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting
testimony describing Roth, Jr.’s tattoo for that purpose. The trial judge’s
ruling on that issue is affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion.
Conclusion
The judgments of the Superior Court are affirmed.
                                   
19 See People v. Dunlap, Colo. Supr., 975 P.2d 723, 744 (1999).