Opinion ID: 2582616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: august 6, 1998, videotape

Text: Deal argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his August 6, 1998, videotaped interview. The prosecution has the burden of proving whether a confession or admission is admissible. K.S.A. 22-3215(4). On appeal, an appellate court will not reverse a determination that a confession or admission was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently given or that it was or was not custodial if there is substantial competent evidence to support the determination. See State v. Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, 183, 14 P.3d 409 (2000) (analyzing whether defendant was in custody under a substantial competent evidence standard); State v. Clemons, 251 Kan. 473, 480, 836 P.2d 1147 (1992) (using substantial competent evidence standard to decide whether defendant was in custody when he was interrogated); State v. William, 248 Kan. 389, 405-06, 807 P.2d 1292 (1991) (applying substantial competent evidence standard of review to determine whether defendant was in custody at the time he was questioned by police). The legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 199, 978 P.2d 277 (1999). On August 6, 1998, police located Deal, Hunke, and Garrett at Hunke's parents' house. Police had been looking for the three men in association with the investigation into Phalp's death. Deal, Hunke, and Garrett were asked to come to the Lenexa Police Department to speak with detectives about Phalp's disappearance. Garret and Hunke got into Deal's pickup truck, and Deal drove to the Lenexa Police Department while police followed. Deal, Hunke, and Garrett did not object to going to the police station. The three were separated and interviewed in separate rooms. The interviews were videotaped. Miranda rights were not read to Deal, Hunke, or Garrett. During Deal's interview, he denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of Phalp and claimed that he was with Jesse Cook on August 2, in Independence. Deal told police that he had heard that Phalp had run away from home and that he had not seen her since the J.R. incident. At trial, Deal properly objected to the introduction of the August 6, 1998, videotaped interview. Deal argued that the interrogation was a custodial interrogation and that because no Miranda rights were ever read, the videotape was inadmissible. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed the videotape to be played for the jury. In doing so, the trial court ruled that Deal was not in custody and that his statement was freely and voluntarily given. In responding to Deal's motion for a new trial, the trial court explained its previous ruling admitting the videotape evidence, stating: The defendant gave a statement to a K.B.I. agent and Miami County Sheriff's officer without first being warned of his rights pursuant to the Miranda decision. At the hearing held on the pretrial motion to suppress, the court found this to be a voluntary statement. The court sees no reason to modify that ruling at this time. The defendant was not in custody. He was not arrested. He was asked to come to the police station interview room. He did so voluntarily. The interview room was equipped with a videotaping device. The court will not reiterate all of its findings previously made, but emphasis should be made that the defendant was free to leave and did so at least twice during the videotaped interview. Furthermore, he received and made telephone calls on his cell phone during the course of the interview. The demeanor of the officers was kind, friendly, and was not coercive in any fashion. The defendant made this statement voluntarily, and it was admissible as evidence against him. Since he was not in custody at the time of the interview, it was not necessary that the officers advise him of his rights per the Miranda decision. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that [n]o person shall be ... compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), the United States Supreme Court stated: [T]he prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In State v. Benoit, 21 Kan. App.2d 184, 189, 898 P.2d 653 (1995), our court of appeals discussed the requirements of the Miranda and stated: Miranda v. Arizona, [citation omitted], prevents the prosecution from using statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, stemming from a custodial interrogation, unless the prosecution proves that procedural safeguards were used to secure the waiver of defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. These safeguards include informing the person in custody, before interrogation, of his or her right to remain silent, right to speak with an attorney, and right to have an attorney present during questioning. If the person asks for an attorney, then all questioning must cease until the attorney is present. [Citations omitted.] The purpose of a Miranda warning is to protect a putative defendant against the compulsion to incriminate himself arising from an official custodial interrogation. [Citation omitted.] This court recently discussed in detail the analysis required when considering whether interrogation evidence should have been excluded in Jacques, 270 Kan. at 185-86, where we stated: The first question in an analysis of the right to remain silent is whether the individual was subjected to a `custodial interrogation' or whether it was merely an `investigatory interrogation.' [Citations omitted.] `Miranda warnings are not required for noncustodial questioning; they are required for custodial questioning.' [Citation omitted.] An objective standard is used to judge whether an interrogation is `custodial.' The proper analysis is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation. [Citation omitted.] A `custodial interrogation' is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way. [Citations omitted.] An `investigatory interrogation,' on the other hand, is the questioning of a person by a law enforcement officer in a routine manner in an investigation that has not reached the accusatory stage and where such person is not in legal custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way. [Citation omitted.] In order to determine if Deal was in custody at the time he was questioned and videotaped, several factors must be evaluated. These include: (1) when and where the interrogation occurred; (2) how long it lasted; (3) how many police officers were present; (4) what the officers and the defendant said and did; (5) the presence of actual physical restraint on the defendant or things equivalent to actual restraint such as drawn weapons or a guard stationed at the door; (6) whether the defendant is being questioned as a suspect or a witness; (7) how the defendant got to the place of questioning, that is, whether he came completely on his own in response to a police request or was escorted by police officers; and (8) what happened after the interrogationwhether the defendant left freely, was detained, or was arrested. The importance of each factor varies from case to case. State v. Fritschen, 247 Kan. 592, 603, 802 P.2d 558 (1990). Deal argues that the Fritschen factors do not support the trial court's admission of the August 6 videotaped interview. In applying the Fritschen factors, Deal notes that (1) the interrogation took place in the early evening and that it took place at the Lenexa Police Department; (2) the interrogation lasted approximately 3 hours but that he was never told that he was free to leave when he asked when the questioning would be over; (3) there were two detectives present during most of the interview; (4) the detectives never told him that he was free to leave at any time even when he asked how much longer the interview would take; (5) the detectives told him that they were investigating Phalp as a missing person and did not reveal that they were investigating a homicide even though they had already found Phalp's body; (6) although he was never in handcuffs, he was placed in a locked room and could not leave without being buzzed out; (7) detectives continually asked him about his whereabouts the weekend of Phalp's death and asked him to take a lie detector test after finally admitting that they were investigating a homicide and not searching for a missing person; (8) he was escorted to the Lenexa Police Department although he chose to go there voluntarily; and (9) he was allowed to leave freely after the questioning was completed and was not further detained or arrested. The State, on the other hand, contends that (1) Deal willingly followed the officers to the Lenexa Police Department; (2) Deal was free to leave at any time and although the detectives never told him that he was free to leave, Deal never asked if he was free to leave; (3) Deal was never handcuffed or placed under arrest; (4) Deal never asked to make any phone calls or asked for anyone else to be present; and (5) Detective Carmack testified that if Deal had asked to leave, he would have allowed him to do so. There is substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's ruling that Deal was not in custody at the time the videotaped interrogation took place on August 6, 1998. A reasonable person in Deal's position would have understood the situation to be a mere investigatory interrogation and not a custodial interrogation. Miranda warnings were not required. The trial court did not err in admitting Deal's videotaped interview.