Opinion ID: 1744448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Because Kreps's Statement Was Made In the Course of Plea Discussions, the Trial Court Committed Reversible Error By Admitting It At Trial.

Text: Prior to trial, Kreps moved to suppress his taped police statement, arguing that it was inadmissible because it was not given voluntarily and because it was made during the course of a plea discussion with the prosecutor and prohibited by KRE 410. In its order denying this motion, the trial court acknowledged that the interrogating officers told Kreps that they couldn't promise anything, but they could relate the fact of his cooperation, and they could make recommendations to the prosecutor's office. With no further discussion of KRE 410 and its prohibition on statements made in the course of plea discussions, the trial court concluded that because Kreps's statements were made voluntarily, his taped confession was admissible. On appeal, Kreps alleges that this ruling constitutes reversible error because KRE 410 mandates the exclusion of his statement. We agree. During Kreps's interview, Graves County Police Officer Drew initially informed Kreps that he could not promise him anything specific because he was not the prosecutor in this case. Kreps countered that he was willing to work with Officer Drew and Kentucky State Police Officer Bell and asked if they could talk to the County Attorney and see what kind of deal we can make. Officer Drew eventually informed Kreps that in Graves County, Kreps was facing four Class C felonies, which could result in five to ten years imprisonment on each count. In pleading with the officers to reduce his felonies to misdemeanors, Kreps stated: If you guys talk [the prosecutor] into a felonyI'm gonna run it all the way up to the court and hope for the best ... I ain't got no choice ... You want me to cop to a misdemeanor and talk probation... I'll give you that. But that's as far as I can go.... Help me out, help a dying man out. Subsequently, after Officer Drew tried to contact the prosecutor on the phone but was unable to reach him, he told Kreps that he knew the prosecutor would reduce his charges to at least Class D felonies and would possibly run his sentences concurrently or allow him to do county time. However, Officer Drew also informed Kreps that those are things that are beyond our control right now because [the prosecutors] are not here and they're ultimately gonna be the ones that make the decision. Officer Drew then spoke with the Commonwealth's Attorney on the phone and informed him that Kreps was willing to write out a statement or give a confession in exchange for a deal. Officer Drew reviewed Kreps' criminal history with the prosecutor. Following the phone conversation, which occurred in Kreps's presence, [2] Officer Drew told Kreps that the prosecutor was offering a little bit but had refused to reduce any of [the charges] to a misdeameanor ... primarily just because of the nature of these particular offenses. Kreps expressed concern that because of his prior convictions, another felony would be his third offense, resulting in an automatic five years. Officer Drew then informed Kreps that the Commonwealth's Attorney did not have a problem with reducing the Class C felonies to Class D and running them concurrently. In response, Kreps said he was looking for the best deal he could get. He inquired if Class D was the lowest level of felony. Officer Drew replied, Yes. It's just above a Class A misdemeanor. Kreps then asked, OK, say I give you what you want. When do I see a judge? Officer Drew replied that Kreps could see a judge that afternoon and that he could post bond. Kreps then informed the officers that he had incriminating information about A.S.'s mother, Terra Anderson, and asked whether he should reveal it now or save it for later. Kreps stated, I'll tell you the deal I'm looking for: one year or less in the countyI'll take the rest on paper. I'll go five years on paper if that's what you want. Officer Drew replied that Kreps's attorney would have to work that out for him later based on the information he could provide about Terra Anderson. Kreps then went to smoke a cigarette. When he returned, he told Officer Drew, I think you're gonna go to bat for me and try to work this out for me ... All right, let's get this over with ... I will confess to having consensual sex with A.S., age fourteen, and will admit to the four counts I'm being charged with. Despite Officer Drew's statement that the Commonwealth's Attorney was willing to reduce the Class C felonies to Class D, Kreps was indicted for two Class C felonies and two Class D felonies. KRE 410(4) prohibits the admission at trial of any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty later withdrawn. Thus, a statement must be suppressed pursuant to KRE 410 when it is made in the course of plea discussions and those discussions are with an attorney for the prosecuting authority. KRE 410(4). First and foremost, Kreps meets the second requirement under KRE 410 because his statement was made in discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority. This Court has held that even when the prosecuting authority is not physically present, this requirement is met when law enforcement agents state they are acting with the express authority ... from a government agent. Roberts v. Commonwealth, 896 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Ky.1995). Here, Officer Drew telephoned the prosecutor in the presence of Kreps, and after ending their phone call, represented to Kreps that the prosecutor had no problem with charging him with Class D felonies and running them concurrently. In making this statement to Kreps, Officer Drew communicated that he was acting with the prosecutor's authority. The more difficult question is whether Kreps made his statement in the course of a plea discussion. This Court has adopted a two-prong test in order to determine whether a defendant's statements have been made in the course of plea discussions: [w]hether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion, and whether the accused's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. Roberts, 896 S.W.2d at 5-6. At the very least, it is clear that when Kreps began his interview with Officer Bell, he intended to negotiate his charges down to misdemeanors in exchange for cooperating with the police and providing a statement. Kreps voluntarily went to the Graves County Sheriffs office in order to discuss his relationship with A.S. and specifically asked to speak with the prosecuting attorney several times in order to make a deal. Thus, Kreps had an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea and satisfies the first prong of the analysis. See Roberts, 896 S.W.2d at 6. However, it is less clear whether Kreps's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. Id. The facts in this case do not establish a plea discussion as clearly as the facts set forth in Roberts, supra . In that case, which is the only published Kentucky case on point, Roberts informed the interrogating officer, Detective Duncan, that he was worried about receiving a Persistent Felony Offender charge and, in order to protect himself from receiving an astronomical sentence, that he wanted to cooperate with the Commonwealth's Attorney's office. Roberts, 896 S.W.2d at 5. After contacting the Commonwealth Attorney, Detective Duncan assured Roberts that he would not be charged with a PFO I if he gave a complete, detailed and truthful statement concerning the robberies in question which could be corroborated by a police investigation. Id. The tape of Roberts's interview demonstrated that he understood the terms and conditions of this deal. Id. Roberts then confessed to being involved in eight different robberies. Id. At trial, the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to introduce Roberts taped statement, finding that it was admissible because it was voluntarily given. Id. On appeal, this Court ruled that Robert's statement should have been excluded pursuant to KRE 410, explaining that Roberts confession was clearly made in the course of plea discussions with a prosecuting authority. Here, as noted above, Officer Drew informed Kreps that the prosecutor had explicitly rejected his initial proposal to reduce his felony charges to misdemeanors, which immediately makes this situation different from the exchange that took place in Roberts, supra . However, after speaking with the prosecutor on the phone, Officer Drew told Kreps that the prosecutor did not have a problem reducing those [Class C felonies] to Class D felonies and running them concurrent. In response to Kreps asking whether that was the lowest level of felony, Officer Drew also informed Kreps that a Class D felony was just above a Class A misdemeanor. Although Kreps did not ask any additional questions about the specific deal, such as requesting confirmation that those would be his charges in exchange for a confession or discussing any additional terms or conditions, the fact remains that soon after Officer Drew represented what the prosecutor was willing to do, Kreps confessed. After carefully reviewing the taped statement, we believe that it was reasonable for Kreps to expect that he and the Commonwealth were negotiating a plea based on the totality of circumstances. Even though Officer Drew originally stated that he could not promise Kreps anything and that the prosecutor would have to make the ultimate decision, later in the interview, Officer Drew informed Kreps that the prosecutor had made a decision about what felonies he would be charged with. Officer Drew unequivocally represented to Kreps that the prosecutor had no problem reducing Kreps's charges to Class D felonies and running them concurrently. Further, Officer Drew made this assurance immediately after speaking with the prosecutor on the phone in Kreps's presence. Thus, this is not the common scenario where the police simply encourage the defendant to give a statement with assurances that the defendant's cooperation will be viewed favorably by the prosecutor. Here, Kreps did not confess until Officer Drew spoke with the prosecutor on the phone and obtained his assurance that Kreps would be charged only with Class D felonies that would run concurrently. Based on the totality of the objective circumstances, it was reasonable for Kreps to expect that he was participating in a plea negotiation and that he would be charged with Class D felonies that would run concurrently if he confessed. Consequently, Kreps's statement was taken in the course of a plea discussion with a prosecuting authority and should have been excluded at trial pursuant to KRE 410. Due to the fact that this statement was an important element of the Commonwealth's case and especially damaging to Kreps, this error cannot be deemed harmless. Therefore, Kreps's convictions must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. [3]