Opinion ID: 1836255
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Personal characteristics

Text: ¶ 22 With respect to Ward's personal characteristics, the circuit court found that she was relatively sophisticated and intelligent. This was not a clearly erroneous finding, and is supported by the record. First, Ward was 35 years old at the time of these interviews, and was a high school graduate. Second, the interview transcripts do not suggest any lack of intelligence; Ward evinced a strong command of language. Third, Ward had a prior conviction, and she is the daughter of a police officer. State v. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 413, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct.App. 1999). For example, the following dialogue occurred when Ward was read her Miranda warnings the first time: [Schaepe]: ... [N]umber one. You [ ] have the right to remain silent. Do you understand that? [Ward]: Yes. [Schaepe]: Okay. [Ward]: You have the right to an attorney. [Schaepe]: What's that? [Ward]: If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. [Schaepe]: Oh you know [] `em pretty well? [Ward]: Yeah. That is, Ward herself demonstrated an unprompted understanding of her rights while in custody without having first been told those rights by the police. This indicates that Ward was not particularly vulnerable to police questioning. ¶ 23 Ward's only basis for challenging the voluntariness of her statements based on her own personal characteristics relates to her allegations of suffering seizures and experiencing back pain while at the hospital during the first questioning session. However, the circuit court made a finding of historical fact on this point, noting: There's no reason to believe that this perceived seizure earlier in the day and some confusion perhaps based on the excitement of the events made her particularly vulnerable to interrogation.... [T]here is really insufficient proof for this court to determine that her back pain or any type of seizure [was] actually [a]ffecting her ability to respond appropriately to Officer Schaepe. There is no real proof that those medical problems made her particularly vulnerable.... This finding does not go against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, i.e., it was not clearly erroneous. Sykes, 279 Wis.2d 742, ¶ 21 n. 7, 695 N.W.2d 277 (quoting Tomlinson, 254 Wis.2d 502, ¶ 36, 648 N.W.2d 367). ¶ 24 Therefore, Ward's physical and mental condition did not cause her to become vulnerable to police interrogation. As a result, none of Ward's personal characteristics favor concluding that her statements were made involuntarily.