Opinion ID: 1235605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: defendant tucker's appeal

Text: Tucker's appeal involves statements he made to Agent Bryant and Deputy Siwinski on 21 April 1988, which he claims were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and to his prejudice. We agree, and we therefore award defendant Tucker a new trial. On 12 April, Tucker had shown Bryant and Siwinski sites in Guilford County related to the murder of Cecil. The light failed before Bryant and Siwinski were able to drive Tucker to Surry County to show them where Cecil's body was left. As a result, Siwinski and Bryant took Tucker to Surry County on 21 April. The trial court allowed both officers to testify about what Tucker said and what he showed them while there. Bryant testified that Tucker identified both the general area where the dumping occurred and the dirt road down which the Tuckers initially had turned to dump the body. Tucker explained that the condition of this first road concerned him and Donna, so they backed out and went north, recrossing the river, to dispose of Cecil's body. Siwinski's testimony was consistent with Bryant's. Prior to trial, Tucker filed a motion to suppress any statements made by him to law enforcement officers. During pretrial hearings, the State asserted that the only statement it intended to introduce was the one made on 12 April. At trial, however, the State began to question Agent Bryant regarding his meeting with defendant Tucker on 21 April. When Tucker objected, the trial court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the 21 April statements. It ruled that the statements were admissible, concluding that Tucker had freely, voluntarily and understandingly waived his right to an attorney before making the statements and that the officers did not threaten or coerce him in order to obtain the statements. The trial court so concluded after hearing the following evidence: On 18 April, Siwinski appeared before the grand jury which indicted Tucker for the murder of Cecil. On 19 April, Tucker turned himself in to Siwinski. On 20 April, Tucker made his first appearance, had a public defender appointed to represent him, and met with appointed counsel. During the voir dire, Siwinski testified that on 21 April he had Tucker brought from the jail to the sheriff's department between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. Siwinski read Tucker his rights, then asked if he agreed to accompany him to Surry County. According to Siwinski, Tucker responded that he wanted to make a phone call first. Initially, Siwinski denied he knew Tucker was trying to call his attorney or that Tucker told him he was unsuccessful in reaching his attorney. When faced with contrary testimony from a 13 February 1989 hearing, however, Siwinski remembered that he knew Tucker attempted unsuccessfully to call his attorney. Tucker gave the following testimony on voir dire: He had met with his attorney, Robert O'Hale, on the evening of 20 April, following his first appearance. O'Hale told him not to talk to anyone or go anywhere without counsel. When officers came to Tucker's cell the next morning, he thought they were taking him to his lawyer. Instead, they took him to Siwinski, who asked him to go to Surry County and read him his rights. He responded, Well, my lawyer told me not to go with you orand talk to anybody, unless I call him first. It was then about 8:05 a.m. Tucker did not have a card with his counsel's phone number; therefore, Siwinski escorted him to a phone booth and gave him a directory. When Tucker had trouble finding the phone number, Siwinski helped him find it. Tucker called once and let the phone ring several times, but no one answered. When Tucker told Siwinski nobody was answering, the following exchange occurred: Siwinski said, Well, we need to hurry, because SBI Agent Bryant has to be somewhere else and we need to get to him early. Tucker said he wanted to phone his attorney once more. Again, he was unable to reach anyone at the Public Defender's Office. When he told Siwinski, Siwinski said, Well, what are you going to do? You're either going with me or you're not. We need to know now. Tucker responded, Well, I'm not supposed to. Robert O'Hale told me not to. Siwinski then said: Well, you've swam too far up the river now to turn back.... It'll be rough on you, if you stop cooperating now.... Mr. McBryde has told you that, and I have too.... I told you before, if I want to fuck you, I'll tell you. But if II don't want you; I want Gene (defendant Wray).... I want you to get in the car. After this exchange, and because of it, Tucker agreed to go with Siwinski and to sign a waiver form. Tucker believed Siwinski when Siwinski threatened him if he did not continue to cooperate. This was not the first time Siwinski had told Tucker he did not want him, but wanted Wray. Siwinski and others had told him if he cooperated the charges would be consolidated and he probably would receive only three to five years. Of the findings of fact made by the trial court, the following are pertinent: 1) On 20 April, Tucker was taken to District Court, where Robert O'Hale was appointed to represent him; 2) O'Hale talked to Tucker later that afternoon or evening and told Tucker not to talk or go with anyone without counsel; 3) On 21 April, Siwinski met with Tucker in the Guilford County Jail Complex and stated that he wanted Tucker to go with him to Surry County; 4) On 21 April, Tucker told Siwinski what his lawyer had said; 5) Tucker tried to call his attorney twice that morning; and 6) Siwinski told Tucker they needed to hurry and something to the effect that `If I want you, I'll tell you. I want Gene.' Rather than challenging the trial court's conclusions of law that the resulting statement was not involuntary or due to threats or promises, Tucker argues that the statement was elicited after his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached and he had invoked his right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment. Tucker's Sixth Amendment right to counsel clearly had attached prior to his meeting with Siwinski on the morning of 21 April. This right attaches upon the commencement of criminal judicial proceedings against a defendant, whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688-89, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1881-82, 32 L.Ed.2d 411, 417 (1972); see also Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 348, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 1179, 108 L.Ed.2d 293, 301-02 (1990); Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 629-30, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 1407-08, 89 L.Ed.2d 631, 638 (1986); Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1239, 51 L.Ed.2d 424, 436, reh'g denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200, 53 L.Ed.2d 240 (1977); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 318, 324, 354 S.E.2d 510, 513 (1987). Here, the right attached during Tucker's initial appearance, because at that point the State's position against him had solidified with respect to the charge of murder. McNeil v. Wisconsin, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2208, 115 L.Ed.2d 158, 168 (1991). Equally clearly, Tucker invoked the right when he requested and received appointment of counsel at his initial appearance. See Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 290-91, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 2394, 101 L.Ed.2d 261, 271 (1988). Thus, his 21 April statements were admissible only if he subsequently waived his asserted right. To determine whether Tucker validly waived the right, we must ask: (1) whether the 21 April interview was police-initiated Jackson, 475 U.S. at 636, 106 S.Ct. at 1411, 89 L.Ed.2d at 642; and (2) whether Tucker knowingly and intelligently waived the right. Patterson, 487 U.S. at 293, 108 S.Ct. at 2395, 101 L.Ed.2d at 272; Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1044-46, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2834-35, 77 L.Ed.2d 405, 411-13 (1983); Nations, 319 N.C. at 326-27, 354 S.E.2d at 515; State v. Robey, 91 N.C.App. 198, 202-03, 371 S.E.2d 711, 713-14 (1988). If the law enforcement authorities, not Tucker, initiated the 21 April interrogation, we need not proceed to the second question because any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. Jackson, 475 U.S. at 636, 106 S.Ct. at 1411, 89 L.Ed.2d at 642; see also Robey, 91 N.C.App. at 203, 371 S.E.2d at 714. The question, therefore, is whether Siwinski or defendant Tucker initiated the conversation that resulted in the incriminating statements. The trial court found that Siwinski met with Tucker and asked Tucker to go to Surry County with him. The evidence on voir dire, from both Tucker and the State, was that Siwinski had Tucker brought to him. Tucker did not request to see Siwinski; rather, Tucker thought he was going to see his attorney. The findings and evidence thus establish without contradiction that the interview was police-initiated. Therefore, the waiver executed by Tucker is invalid, despite Siwinski's informing Tucker of his rights and Tucker's ultimately acquiescing in Siwinski's request to accompany him to Surry County. Jackson, 475 U.S. at 635-36, 106 S.Ct. at 1410-11, 89 L.Ed.2d at 641-42. Language in Patterson, 487 U.S. at 296-98, 108 S.Ct. at 2397-98, 101 L.Ed.2d at 275-76, suggesting that a proper admonishment of a defendant's Miranda rights will suffice to show a valid waiver is limited to the facts of that case. There, the defendant had not asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, had not invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, had not been appointed counsel, and had not made his first appearance. The Court distinguished the Michigan v. Jackson situation, in which the defendant had been arraigned and counsel had been appointed. Id. at 296 n. 9, 108 S.Ct. at 2397 n. 9, 101 L.Ed.2d at 275 n. 9. Jackson, rather than Patterson, is the controlling precedent here. Thus, the waiver Tucker executed during the interrogation initiated by Siwinski is invalid and his statements were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Further, the statements were inadmissible under the prophylactic rules established to safeguard the Fifth Amendment right to counsel. In McNeil v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a defendant's assertion of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel automatically results in an invocation of the right to counsel for Fifth Amendment purposes. McNeil, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2207-09, 115 L.Ed.2d at 166-69. For a request for counsel at a judicial proceeding to serve as a Fifth Amendment invocation as well, there must be an indication of a desire to deal with the police only through counsel, not merely the expression of a desire to have counsel present at formal proceedings. Id. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2209, 115 L.Ed.2d at 169. Here, however, Tucker's assertions and the circumstances on the morning of 21 April, rather than his request for counsel at his first appearance, determine the sufficiency of his invocation of the right to counsel for Fifth Amendment purposes. After Siwinski asked Tucker if he would go to Surry County, Tucker said his attorney had told him not to talk to anyone or go anywhere without counsel. Tucker asked to, and did, call his attorney twice. Siwinski knew whom Tucker was trying to reach and that Tucker was not successful. If a defendant indicates in any manner... that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1609-13, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 707 (1966). This Court recently relied on this language in holding that a defendant invoked the right to counsel when she asked if she needed an attorney and her friend looked up the defendant's attorney's phone number, only to be dissuaded by the officers from calling him. State v. Torres, 330 N.C. 517, 412 S.E.2d 20 (1992). In informing the authorities of his desire to call his attorney and in attempting to do so, Tucker, too, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Porter, 764 F.2d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 1985) (suspect's attempt to telephone his attorney in presence of DEA agent constituted invocation of right to counsel); Silva v. Estelle, 672 F.2d 457, 458 (5th Cir.1982) (defendant's request to call a lawyer, made to arraignment magistrate, can only be construed as exercise of right to counsel); United States v. Lilla, 534 F.Supp. 1247, 1279 (N.D.N.Y.1982), on subsequent appeal, 699 F.2d 99 (2d Cir.1983) (suspect's request to his mother to call attorney, made in the presence of arresting officers, invoked right to counsel); Gorel v. United States, 531 F.Supp. 368, 371 (S.D.Tex.1981) (recognizing that if suspect's request to his wife to telephone attorney had been attempt to obtain present counsel, suspect's Fifth Amendment rights would have been violated). Because Tucker invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogation, he was not subject to further police interrogation until his attorney was made available unless he himself initiated subsequent communication with Siwinski. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, 386, reh'g denied, 452 U.S. 973, 101 S.Ct. 3128, 69 L.Ed.2d 984 (1981). Under Edwards, a valid waiver of the invoked right cannot be established merely by showing that the defendant responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation, even if read his rights. Id.; see also Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 98-100, 105 S.Ct. 490, 494-95, 83 L.Ed.2d 488, 496 (1984). A valid waiver can only occur if the defendant reinitiates the conversation and the waiver was knowing and intelligent. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1044-46, 103 S.Ct. at 2834-35, 77 L.Ed.2d at 411-13. Unless defendant initiated the contact, we do not even consider whether any waiver was knowing and intelligent. Id. Siwinski's interrogation of Tucker clearly violated Edwards in that Siwinski continued to pressure and question Tucker after Tucker attempted to call his attorney. Siwinski engaged in the very conduct Edwards proscribes. See Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. ___, ___, 111 S.Ct. 486, 490, 112 L.Ed.2d 489, 496 (1990); Harvey, 494 U.S. at 349, 110 S.Ct. at 1179, 108 L.Ed.2d at 302. Thus, Tucker's 21 April statement was inadmissible. The State contends that Tucker's Fifth Amendment invocation was a limited invocation only to call his attorney and that the interrogating officer respected the limited invocation by stopping his interrogation and even aiding Tucker in calling his attorney. It relies on Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) and Griffin v. Lynaugh, 823 F.2d 856 (5th Cir.1987). In Barrett, the Supreme Court held that an oral statement by a defendant, who said he would not make a written statement without his attorney present but had no problem talking about the offense charged, was admissible. Barrett, 479 U.S. at 527-30, 107 S.Ct. at 831-33, 93 L.Ed.2d at 927-28. In Griffin, the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant's request to talk to his attorney was a limited, unambiguous request to do just that. Griffin, 823 F.2d at 863. Upon the defendant's request the police stopped the interrogation, aided the defendant in calling his attorney, and left the defendant alone while he talked with the attorney on the telephone. Upon reentering the interrogation room and learning from the defendant that the attorney had declined to represent him, the interrogating officers asked the defendant if he wanted to call another attorney, to which the defendant responded in the negative. Id. Unlike the defendants in those cases, Tucker did not make an invocation limited merely to calling his attorney or declining to make only one kind of statement. Tucker prefaced his two attempts to call his attorney with the statement that the attorney had told him not to talk to anyone or go anywhere without calling him first. When he failed to reach the attorney a second time, Tucker repeated that he was not supposed to go with Siwinski. Even interpreting Tucker's statements narrowly, which is counter to authority, [2] we would have to conclude that Siwinski did not honor Tucker's request. At a minimum, Tucker's communication conveyed an intent to make actual contact with his attorney to see what he advised. Finally, unlike in Griffin, where the court noted that there was no overreaching by the police, Siwinski's conduct here clearly violated the proscriptions of Edwards. Griffin, 823 F.2d at 863. The State further argues that Tucker's Sixth Amendment challenge is barred because he failed to assert it at trial. According to the State, the basis of Tucker's objection at trial was that there was no proper waiver of rights. The State contends that because Tucker did not argue Michigan v. Jackson at trial, he cannot argue it on appeal. See State v. Robbins, 319 N.C. 465, 495-96, 356 S.E.2d 279, 297-98, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 918, 108 S.Ct. 269, 98 L.Ed.2d 226 (1987); State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112-13, 286 S.E.2d 535, 538-39 (1982). While Tucker argued at trial that the waiver was signed under duress, he also argued that the statement was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights after he had received appointed counsel. Specifically, Tucker's attorney argued that the waiver was signed under duress and in the face of his [Tucker's] clearly announced desire to communicate, and efforts, not just statements, but efforts, along with Mr. Siwinski's cooperation, to talk with his attorney. These statements are not admissible. They are obtained in violation of constitutional guarantees and the announced right of the defendant and exercise of his Sixth Amendment rights to have the assistance of counsel in this matter, counsel that had already been appointed. (Emphasis added.) Tucker thus clearly argued at trial that the statement was obtained in violation of his attached and invoked Sixth Amendment right to counsel. This Court, therefore, properly may consider and determine the validity of his Sixth Amendment argument. See Hunter, 305 N.C. at 112, 286 S.E.2d at 539. Because the error in admitting Tucker's statement was of constitutional dimension, the State must show that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (1988); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11, reh'g denied, 386 U.S. 987, 87 S.Ct. 1283, 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967). It argues that because evidence that Tucker remembered the general area in which he and Donna disposed of Cecil's body was not inconsistent with Tucker's defense at trial, any error was harmless. While Tucker contended that he was too drugged to have killed Cecil, he never denied being with Donna on the night of the murder. The State argues that, in fact, the officers' testimony that Tucker could not remember the exact spot of the dumping aided Tucker's defense of mental cloudiness. While the officers testified that Tucker could not locate the exact spot along the wooded bank of the river that ultimately became the disposal site, they also testified that Tucker remembered crossing the river, choosing a dirt road, driving down it, rejecting it, recrossing the river, and disposing of the body. Evidence that Tucker could remember such details of an evening a year and a half before the statement renders his defense considerably less credible. Such evidence may well have caused the jury to reject his evidence of mental cloudiness and apathy at the time Cecil was choked. We thus cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error in admitting the statement was harmless. In summary, the trial court erred, to defendant Wray's prejudice, in excluding the 15 April 1987 and the 22 and 25 February 1988 statements. It also erred, to defendant Tucker's prejudice, in admitting the 21 April 1988 statement. We therefore award both defendants a new trial. DEFENDANT WRAY'S APPEAL: NEW TRIAL. DEFENDANT TUCKER'S APPEAL: NEW TRIAL. LAKE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.