Opinion ID: 1325644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Mueller's February 12, 1991 Confession.

Text: Mueller contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his confession of February 12, 1991. He does not contest the adequacy of the Miranda warnings given at the outset of the interrogation, nor does he challenge the validity of his initial waiver of these rights. Rather, Mueller asserts only that Detective Garber's response to his question, Do you think I need an attorney here?, invalidated the earlier Miranda warnings given to him. Thus, he contends that his subsequent confession was involuntary. In assessing the effect of Detective Garber's response on the voluntariness of Mueller's statement, we apply a well-established standard of review. In Gray v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. at 324, 356 S.E.2d at 163, we said: A defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights is valid only if the waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Miranda [ v. Arizona ], 384 U.S. [436] at 475 [86 S.Ct. 1602 at 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)]. Whether a statement is voluntary is ultimately a legal rather than factual question. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 110, 106 S.Ct. 445, 450 [88 L.Ed.2d 405] (1985). Subsidiary factual questions, however, are entitled to a presumption of correctness. Id. at 112, 106 S.Ct. at 451. The test to be applied in determining voluntariness is whether the statement is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker's will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 [93 S.Ct. 2041, 2046, 36 L.Ed.2d 854] (1973). In determining whether a defendant's will has been overborne, courts look to the totality of all the surrounding circumstances, id. at 226, including the defendant's background and experience and the conduct of the police, Correll v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 454, 464, 352 S.E.2d 352, 357 (1987); Stockton [ v. Commonwealth ], 227 Va. [124] at 140, 314 S.E.2d [371] at 381 [(1984)]. The record shows that Mueller was 42 years old at the time he made this confession and that he had a high school equivalency diploma. Prior to the interrogation, Detective Garber advised Mueller of his rights under Miranda and Mueller stated that he understood each of those rights. Earlier investigative efforts in this case also demonstrate Mueller's experience with police interrogation procedures. On October 9, 1990, Garber read a Miranda Right Form to Mueller. After Garber ascertained that Mueller understood the content of the form, Mueller signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights. On two occasions after signing this waiver, Mueller exercised his right to terminate police questioning. In addition, the record shows that several years earlier, Mueller had been informed of and had waived his Miranda rights on three occasions. On each of these occasions, he executed a form waiving his Miranda rights, and he gave a statement to the police. We also note that, during the February 12, 1991 interrogation, Mueller made some statements which further demonstrate that he was aware of the consequences of talking to the police. Before confessing, Mueller expressed concern regarding where he would be incarcerated, given the serious nature of the crimes. After confessing to the crimes, he told Detective Garber and Agent Palfi that he had wanted to get it off his chest. At this time, Mueller further stated, I got death coming to me. I knew it as soon as I opened my mouth. We also consider the factual findings made by the trial court concerning Mueller's confession. The trial court found that Mueller knew how to ask for the assistance of legal counsel, as evidenced by his request for such assistance on October 9, 1990, during the course of a prior interview with Detective Garber and Agent Palfi; that the police properly advised Mueller of his Miranda rights on February 12, 1992; and that he understood those rights prior to confessing to the crimes. The trial court further found that Mueller's question to Detective Garber on February 12,1991 was not an expression of a desire for the assistance of counsel. Mueller does not assert that these factual findings are unsupported by evidence taken at the suppression hearing. Based on our review of this evidence, we conclude that the factual findings of the trial court are supported by the record and, therefore, we accord them substantial weight in our determination whether Mueller's statement was voluntary. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104,112,106 S.Ct. 445, 450, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). Based on the above evidence and findings, we hold that Mueller's question, Do you think I need an attorney here?, and Detective Garber's response, did not invalidate Mueller's earlier waiver of his Miranda rights. Initially, we find that Mueller's question to Garber did not constitute a request for counsel. In Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 253-54, 397 S.E.2d 385, 395-96 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 88, 116 L.Ed.2d 60 (1991), this Court stated that custodial interrogation must cease, when the accused, having received Miranda warnings and having begun to respond to the questions of the authorities, `has clearly asserted his right to counsel.' (quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1885, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)) (emphasis in original). In Eaton, the police had continued to question the defendant after he had asked, You did say I could have an attorney if I wanted one? 240 Va. at 250, 397 S.E.2d at 393. This Court held that the defendant's question did not constitute an unambiguous request for counsel so as to invoke the Edwards rule. 240 Va. at 254, 397 S.E.2d at 396. Here, we likewise hold that Mueller's question to Detective Garber did not constitute an unambiguous request for counsel. Mueller contends, however, that even if his question did not constitute a request for the assistance of counsel, Detective Garber's response nevertheless invalidated Mueller's earlier waiver of his Miranda rights. We disagree. Based on our review of the videotape of the interrogation, we observe that Garber did not, as contended here by Mueller, respond to Mueller's question by answering No. Rather, he replied, while shrugging and shaking his head slightly from side to side, You're just talking to us. Considering the totality of the circumstances detailed above, including Mueller's prior experience in the criminal justice system and his previous contacts with Detective Garber and Agent Palfi, we find that Garber's response to the question at issue did not invalidate Mueller's earlier waiver of his Miranda rights. Moreover, since Garber's response to Mueller did not constitute an unambiguously negative reply, the information provided in the initial advisement of Miranda rights was not altered by this response. We also reject Mueller's assertion that his repeated statements that he wanted to be taken to jail constituted an invocation of his right to terminate police questioning. In Akers v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 40, 216 S.E.2d 28 (1975), this Court confronted a similar situation where the defendant, after being advised of his Miranda rights, stated, Do I have to talk about it now? In response to this question, the police merely continued the interrogation. This Court held that the defendant's question was not an invocation of his right to terminate questioning, stating, Defendant's inquiry was no more than an impatient gesture on his part. If defendant had desired to end the interrogation, he could have simply said, `I do not want to answer any more questions.' 216 Va. at 46, 216 S.E.2d at 32. Based on our review of the videotape of Mueller's interrogation, we likewise conclude that his statements regarding going to jail were simply impatient gestures and that they did not constitute an invocation of his right to terminate the interrogation. After each such statement, Mueller continued to talk with Garber and Palfi, giving no indication that he wanted to end the discussion. Moreover, when Palfi asked him whether he would rather talk to other officers instead of himself and Garber, Mueller responded, I've been talking to you for four months. I've established a pretty good relationship with you guys. Finally, the record shows that, during two previous interviews with Garber, Mueller unambiguously had terminated the police interrogation by standing up and stating that he wanted the officers to stop questioning him. For these reasons, on our independent review of the record, we conclude, as a matter of law, that Mueller's statement of February 12, 1991 was voluntary and admissible.