COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Frank and Humphreys 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

STEPHEN M. SNEADE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1105-99-2 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III 

 OCTOBER 10, 2000 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY 

Robert G. O'Hara, Jr., Judge 

 Peter D. Eliades (Eliades & Eliades, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General 

(Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), 

for appellee. 

A jury convicted Stephen M. Sneade, age sixteen, of capital 

murder, robbery, and use of a firearm in the commission of a 

murder and in the commission of a robbery. The defendant 

contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress 

his confession. On appeal, he contends he was in custody when 

he made his confession and should have been given his Miranda

rights.1 He also argues that because he was a juvenile and the 

focus of an investigation, he required the presence of a 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1

 We find no merit in the defendant's argument that he 

should have been given Miranda warnings even if not in custody 

because he was a juvenile. 
- 2 - 

guardian ad litem or counsel when he confessed.2 Finding no 

error, we affirm. 

 The proprietor of Anderson's Grocery in Brunswick County 

was robbed and murdered March 6, 1997. The state police 

executed a search warrant at the defendant's home in Prince 

George County twelve days later. After the search, the police 

took the defendant to the police station for questioning. They 

advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, which he invoked 

without incident. The defendant left the police station when 

his attorney arrived for him. 

 Eric Young was a detective with the Prince George Police 

Department assigned as a juvenile officer. He worked primarily 

with juvenile cases and had his office in the court services 

office rather than in the police department building. While 

Young had assisted executing the search warrant at the 

defendant's home and had occasional contact with the defendant, 

he had never discussed the Brunswick County case with him. 

On January 12, 1998, Detective Young met with Shelby Fuller 

to discuss her school attendance. Fuller told him she was 

dating the defendant. Young told her that he had contact with 

the defendant in the past, and suggested that if the defendant 

ever felt "the need to talk . . . please have him give me a 

 2

 We find no merit in the argument that the defendant was 

coerced psychologically because he was a juvenile. 
- 3 - 

call, . . . or come by the office at any time." That evening, 

Fuller contacted Detective Young and advised that the defendant 

wanted to speak to him. 

The next day, the defendant and Fuller went to Young's 

office as arranged. Because the office was crowded, the three 

walked to a park adjacent to the courthouse complex. Young 

asked the defendant if he wanted "to talk about anything" but 

noted it was entirely up to the defendant. The defendant said 

he did not care. Young commented that the defendant had had a 

rough year and suggested it would be in the defendant's best 

interest to tell his side of the story if he knew about the 

Brunswick incident. Young informed the defendant that he was 

not investigating the case and the most he could do for the 

defendant was to "put in a good word" with the Brunswick police. 

The three of them left the park and drove to the police 

department because it was too cold to remain outside. They 

continued talking in a private room at the police department. 

Young again asked the defendant if he wanted to talk and 

again advised him that it was completely up to him. The 

defendant stated, "he'd rather write than talk." For forty to 

forty-five minutes, the defendant wrote his confession. Young 

and the defendant did not confer while he wrote, and Young did 

not make suggestions about what he should write. Fuller was 

present the entire time. 
- 4 - 

 When the defendant finished writing, he gave his statement 

to Young, who asked permission to read it. After the defendant 

consented, Young read it and had the defendant sign and date 

each page. Young told the defendant he would have to contact 

the Brunswick authorities and would put in a good word for him. 

Young took the defendant and Fuller back to their car, and they 

left the complex. 

 When we review the voluntariness of a confession, we must 

conduct "an independent examination of the totality of the 

circumstances to determine whether the statement is the product 

of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or 

whether the maker's will has been overborne and his capacity for 

self-determination critically impaired." Bailey v. 

Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 236, 239, 456 S.E.2d 144, 145 (1995) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Miranda warnings are required when a defendant is in 

custody and is being interrogated. See Blain v. Commonwealth, 7 

Va. App. 10, 13, 371 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1988). Police are not 

required to give Miranda warnings every time they question a 

suspect, even when the interrogation takes place at the police 

station, see Bailey v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 723, 745-46, 529 

S.E.2d 570, 583 (2000), petition for cert. filed, ___ U.S.L.W. 

___, (Sept. 6, 2000) (No. 00-6045), or "the investigation has 

focused on the defendant." Bosworth v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 
- 5 - 

567, 573, 375 S.E.2d 756, 759 (1989) (citation omitted). "No 

single factor determines custody for this purpose." Id. When 

the defendant initiates the conversation with the police, there 

is no interrogation. See Ronald J. Bacigal, Virginia Criminal 

Procedure § 7-5, at 162 (4th ed. 1999). Nor does the fact that 

the defendant's attorney was not present during his statement to 

police invalidate his confession. See Bailey, 20 Va. App. at 

239-40, 456 S.E.2d at 145. 

The trial court ruled that the defendant knowingly waived 

his Miranda rights, that his written statement was voluntarily 

made and a product of his own free will, and that Detective 

Young did not exert pressure to overcome the defendant’s will. 

Credible evidence supports those findings. 

Here, the defendant was neither in custody nor 

interrogated; the requirements to invoke Miranda did not exist. 

The defendant initiated contact with Detective Young through his 

girlfriend. The two voluntarily went to Young's office the next 

day and met with him. During the meeting, the defendant and his 

girlfriend were always together. They were free to leave at any 

time, and the physical surroundings permitted them to leave by 

simply walking off. The defendant wrote his statement and took 

forty-five minutes to complete it. He handed it to Detective 

Young, who asked permission before reading it. As the trial 

court noted, the defendant understood his Miranda rights and 
- 6 - 

asserted them previously without incident. This evidence 

provides no suggestion that the confession was other than 

voluntary. 

We conclude the trial court did not err in denying the 

motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's 

convictions. 

Affirmed.