Opinion ID: 2423969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Miranda Rights Waived

Text: Hubbard does not contest the voluntariness of his statements under the first part of the Moran test for waiver. Hubbard's sole contention is that he did not understand his Miranda rights and the consequences of waiving them. For a waiver to withstand judicial scrutiny under the second part of the Moran test, the defendant must comprehend the plain meaning of his basic Miranda rights. [16] In analyzing the second part of the Moran test, the totality of the circumstances must be examined, including the behavior of the interrogators, the conduct of the defendant, his age, his intellect, his experience, and all other pertinent factors. [17] Hubbard's first argument is that he did not have a full awareness of the nature of the rights he was abandoning and the consequences of that important decision to abandon those rights. According to Hubbard, Detective Leccia's recitation of his Miranda rights, in approximately twenty-one seconds, was rushed and haphazard. Hubbard also argues that Detective Leccia failed to affirmatively ascertain whether Hubbard wanted to give a statement before he proceeded with questioning. In support of the latter contention, Hubbard notes that Detective Leccia did not advise him of his Miranda rights in writing and did ask him to sign a written waiver of those rights. Accordingly, Hubbard contends that the waiver of his Miranda rights was invalid. The United States Supreme Court has held that there is no precise formulation necessary to satisfy the requirements of Miranda's procedural safeguards. [18] Although Detective Leccia's recitation of Hubbard's Miranda rights did not take very long, Hubbard has cited no authority that requires Miranda to be given at a certain pace. There is no doubt that written Miranda waivers are a best police practice. [19] They are not required, however, as a matter of law. [20] The best evidence of a valid waiver of Miranda rights is a videotaped recording and that is what the State presented in Hubbard's case. Pursuant to the holding in Miranda, before questioning suspects in custody, law enforcement officials must inform them that: they have the right to remain silent; their statements may be used against them at trial; they have the right to the presence of an attorney during questioning; and if they cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for them. [21] That information does not have to be stated exactly as it is written in the Miranda opinion. However, law enforcement officials must convey the complete substance of Miranda's safeguard to a suspect. [22] The record reflects that the Miranda warnings recited by Detective Leccia at the outset of the videotaped interview informed Hubbard about all of the procedural safeguards required by the holding in Miranda: [the] right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used against him and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. [23] The record also reflects that not only were the Miranda warnings conveyed to Hubbard by Detective Leccia, but that Hubbard affirmatively acknowledged that he understood his rights. Detective Leccia then asked Hubbard with your rights in mind do you wanna talk to me? Hubbard responded I was with a girl. Detective Leccia then asked Hubbard for clarification of that answer: [S]o that's a yes you'll talk to me[?] and Hubbard replied, Yeah. I was with a girl. Yeah. Hubbard then proceeded to answer several hundred questions posed by Detective Leccia. Ultimately, during the course of the interrogation, Hubbard admitted his involvement in the crime. The record establishes that the warnings given to Hubbard by Detective Leccia were adequately conveyed. After the warnings were given, Hubbard stated that he understood his rights. The Superior Court reviewed the videotape in which the warnings were given, which enabled the Superior Court to evaluate Detective Leccia's recitation of those warnings and Hubbard's response to those warnings. In addition to reviewing the videotape of the interview, the Superior Court was entitled to consider Hubbard's age, intellect, and experience in the criminal justice system. [24] At the time of his arrest, Hubbard was twenty-seven years old and had significant experience with the criminal justice system. The record indicates that Hubbard made an express waiver of his Miranda rights by his words and his actions. [25]