Title: State v. Jeffreys

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Jeffreys  (95-024); 165 Vt 579; 682 A.2d 951

[Opinion Filed 27-Jun-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-024

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1995


State of Vermont                     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     District Court of Vermont,
                                     }     Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
William Earl Jeffreys, Jr.           }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 4218-10-93Cncr


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This interlocutory appeal arises from the Chittenden District Court's
  ruling on defendant William Earl Jeffreys's motion to suppress four
  statements made to the Burlington police during an investigation of an
  assault and robbery.  The court suppressed two of four statements on the
  ground that they were obtained in violation of Miranda and the public
  defender statute.  The State contends that all of defendant's statements
  are admissible. Defendant cross-appeals, contending that none of his
  statements are admissible.  We affirm.

       On October 15, 1994, Detective Charland of the Burlington Police
  Department obtained a search warrant for the apartment where defendant was
  living and proceeded to that address accompanied by Officers Lewis and
  Bettino.  Defendant arrived shortly after the police.  Officer Lewis
  approached defendant and revealed that he had information linking him to an
  assault and robbery that had occurred in City Hall Park on October 4, in
  which a man was robbed and beaten with a cinder block.  The officer asked
  defendant to tell the truth about what had happened.  Defendant replied
  that he was high on marijuana and did not want to talk.  Lewis did not
  notice any odor of marijuana or symptoms of intoxication and continued to
  question defendant.  Defendant did not respond other than to ask, "What do
  you get for attempted murder -- twenty years?"  Despite continued
  questioning, defendant said nothing further and left the porch.

       Detective Charland then approached defendant, said that he knew
  defendant had been involved in the assault, and asked him to cooperate. 
  Defendant stuck his hands out, said the police had nothing on him, and
  invited them to arrest him if that was their intent.  He was handcuffed and
  put in the back of a cruiser where, with Officer Bettino present, Officer
  Lewis again tried to elicit a statement.  Then Officer Lewis read defendant
  his Miranda rights, and defendant agreed, orally, to waive them.  Defendant
  was not asked to sign a written waiver. Nevertheless, Officer Lewis
  continued questioning defendant.  Ultimately, defendant told Officer Lewis
  that he had struck the victim in the head with a cement block, knocking him
  to the ground.  He also repeated that he was high and could not remember
  well.

       About forty-five minutes later, while defendant was still in the
  cruiser, Officer Lewis obtained, and defendant signed, a written waiver
  form.  Officer Lewis then asked defendant to

 

  make a taped statement.  Defendant said he was high and did not want to
  make a taped statement.  Nevertheless, Officer Lewis obtained a recorder
  and continued questioning defendant. Defendant acknowledged on tape that
  his rights had been read to him.  He then admitted having gone to the park
  with an individual named Ritchie.  In the park, defendant and Ritchie had
  encountered the victim, and defendant had hit him with a cinder block,
  knocking him to the ground.  Defendant further stated that Ritchie had
  kicked the victim and said, "Let's do him," or words to that effect, to
  which defendant had replied, "Let me do him."

       Several hours later, at the police station, defendant approached
  Detective Charland and said that he remembered more about the incident and
  wanted to expand upon his prior answers. Defendant proceeded to give an
  additional statement.

       First, defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to
  suppress the question defendant asked in the course of his conversation
  with Officer Lewis on the back porch: "What do you get for attempted murder
  -- twenty years?"  Relying on Miranda v. Arizona,