Opinion ID: 2453894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Petition For Review And Findings On Remand

Text: Kalmakoff petitioned this court for review of the court of appeals' decision and we granted the petition. After briefing and oral argument, we issued an order on June 1, 2010, retaining jurisdiction and remanding to the trial court for additional factual findings. [23] We noted that in determining whether Kalmakoff's statements from the third and fourth interviews were tainted by earlier violations, the court of appeals correctly looked to the factors articulated in Halberg v. State .  [24] However, we expressed our disagreement with the court of appeals' determination that Kalmakoff made only two significant admissions during the first two interviews and that these admissions did not play a significant role in convincing Kalmakoff to participate in the third interview. [25] We explained: Our review of the transcripts indicates that during the first half of the first interview, Kalmakoff made three highly significant admissions that may have influenced his later decision to confess in the third interview: that he was drinking on the night of the murder; that he and his cousin found the murder weapon in the house where the victim was sleeping and took it with them; and that he and his cousin returned to check on the victim several times and the victim became angry with him. [26] Thus, to conduct a proper taint analysis for the third and fourth interviews, it was necessary to know whether these admissions were obtained legally or were the result of an interview conducted in violation of Miranda. Because the court of appeals had held that the facts surrounding Kalmakoff's first interview were not sufficiently clear to determine whether Kalmakoff was in custody throughout that interview, we remanded to the trial court for additional factual findings. [27] The trial court issued additional factual findings on August 31, 2010. We then ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether, in light of the additional findings on remand, Kalmakoff was in custody throughout the first interview and what effect Kalmakoff's statements in that interview might have on the taint analysis for the third and fourth interviews.