Opinion ID: 1354008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Involuntary Statement

Text: Upton argues for his first point that between his first and second statements, Captain Ashlock interviewed Brian Conner, learned of Upton's complicity in the murder, and that changed Upton's status from voluntary witness to that of suspect. He maintains that this change in status caused him to be in custody, because his liberty was now curtailed. He points out that the size of the room, approximately 6½ feet by 14 feet, the fact that Captain Ashlock was blocking the only exit, and the tone of the interrogation made the second interview one that was much more accusatory. Because he had cause to believe that Conner had implicated him, Upton claims that a reasonable person in his shoes would have thought his freedom was curtailed. In short, he concludes that at the time of the second interview when his status had changed from voluntary, potential witness to in-custody suspect, he should have been read his Miranda rights again. This Court reviews a trial judge's ruling on a motion to suppress by making an independent determination based upon the totality of the circumstances, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. Wright v. State, 335 Ark. 395, 403-04, 983 S.W.2d 397, 401 (1998) (citing Tabor v. State, 333 Ark. 429, 971 S.W.2d 227 (1998)). The trial court's ruling will only be reversed, if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See id. The initial question for us to resolve in our analysis is when was Upton taken into custody. In Riggs v. State, 339 Ark. 111, 3 S.W.3d 305 (1999), this Court quoted from a prior decision in which we discussed what constituted custodial interrogation: It is settled that the safeguards prescribed by Miranda become applicable as soon as a suspect's freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), citing California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam). Stated another way, the Supreme Court defined custodial interrogation as meaning the questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of action in any significant way. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (196[6]); see also Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (U.S. 1994) (per curiam); and Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam). The Supreme Court further explicitly recognized that Miranda warnings are not required simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Beheler, 463 U.S. at 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517. In resolving the question of whether a suspect was in custody at a particular time, the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's shoes would have understood his situation. The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being interrogated. Stansbury, 114 S.Ct. at 1529. Riggs, 339 Ark. at 118, 3 S.W.3d at 309 (1999) (quoting State v. Spencer, 319 Ark. 454, 457, 892 S.W.2d 484, 485 (1995)). We agree that Upton's status did change between the first and second interviews for the reasons he stated. Indeed, Captain Ashlock appeared to confirm that. Nevertheless, we do not view that fact as pivotal to our resolution of this issue. This court has not addressed the precise issue of the continued effectiveness of Miranda warnings to a voluntary witness whose status changes during the interview process to suspect. We have, however, held that a trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding a second statement made by an accused voluntary though there had been a hiatus of two days since the first Miranda warnings. Upton v. State, 257 Ark. 424, 516 S.W.2d 904 (1974). See also Whitmore v.. State, 296 Ark. 308, 756 S.W.2d 890 (1988) (no Miranda violation when warnings given to a suspect at 3:00 a.m. and statement taken without fresh warnings two days later). The Supreme Court of Connecticut, however, has decided the precise issue that confronts us today. See State v. Burge, 195 Conn. 232, 487 A.2d 532 (1985). In that case, Burge, who was not a suspect, was fully informed of his Miranda rights and executed a written waiver of those rights after he arrived at police headquarters voluntarily between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m. His status changed due to statements made in a subsequent interrogation and after a visit to the crime scene with police. When Burge returned to police headquarters at around 7:00 p.m., his Miranda warnings were repeated in part. He then provided police offices with a written statement, which was completed, read, and signed by 8:30 p.m. Burge argued on appeal that the Miranda warnings he received in the early afternoon were inadequate to validate the confessions he gave four hours later. The Supreme Court of Connecticut disagreed and said: The disclosure that Miranda requires must be made no later than the time when an accused is taken into custody. When the police are conducting a good faith precustodial investigation at police headquarters, they may have difficulty in determining the precise moment when questioning turns into custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings are required. Although the uncertain line between questioning and custodial interrogation does not excuse late warnings, it does provide a justification for the validity of good faith early warnings which are sufficiently proximate to formal custody to alert the person being questioned to the importance of these constitutional rights. .... In this case, the defendant was continuously in the company of the police, was questioned on the same subject by the same officers throughout that time, and confessed within four hours of having been given the warnings. The defendant's mental condition was not shown to have so affected his memory or faculties as to render the earlier warnings ineffective. In these circumstances, we conclude that the initial warnings performed their constitutionally mandated function even though they were issued prior to the time the defendant was in custody or had become a suspect. Burge, 195 Conn. at 247-49, 487 A.2d at 543 (citations omitted). In the case before us, Upton was in the company of Sheriff's investigators from approximately 10:00 p.m. until 3:00 or 4:00a.m. He was questioned on the same subject by the same officer during the two-hour period that he was interviewed and confessed within two hours of being given his Miranda warnings. Nothing in the record demonstrates that his mental condition was such that he did not understand the warnings. As was the case in State v. Burge, supra , it is clear to us that the Miranda warnings Upton received and the waiver he executed were adequate and sufficient. There was no Fifth Amendment violation, and we affirm the trial court on this point.