Opinion ID: 2098008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Text: The defendant's contentions on appeal center around the admission at trial of the just-described sixth interview. On November 16, 2005, defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements that he had made to the Providence police. Although the motion originally sought suppression of the statements and/or admissions obtained by the Providence police on or about August 1, 2005 (thereby including all six interviews at the police station), defense counsel ultimately limited his suppression motion to the sixth interview. [10] At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defendant contended that the statements made during his sixth interview should be suppressed due to what he argued was a violation of Rule 5(a) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure; it was his contention that the sixth interview was the result of an unnecessary delay in presentment and that therefore his statements in that interview should be suppressed. [11] At the suppression hearing, the hearing justice heard testimony about the interviews at the police station from Providence Police Detectives Robert Fitzpatrick and William Mattera [12] as well as from defendant. Detective Fitzpatrick testified at the suppression hearing that, during the first five interviews, which were conducted on August 1, defendant was eager and cooperative. The detective further described defendant as having been desirous of discuss[ing] the situation with [them]; he said that defendant appeared to want to make sure [that the detectives] got all the facts. The detective further described defendant as having been agreeable with respect to answering the detectives' questions throughout the interviews on that day. Detective Fitzpatrick also testified extensively as to how Detective McGann and he had apprised defendant of his Miranda rights at the beginning of the fifth interview; he added that, after defendant had been apprised of his rights, he continued to answer the detectives' questions. Detective Fitzpatrick further testified that, after the conclusion of the fifth interview, defendant was taken into custody and placed in [the] cell block area. It is undisputed that, at 1:29 p.m. on August 2 (the day following defendant's late-night arrest at the end of the fifth interview), the detectives began to interview defendant for a sixth and final time before bringing him to the District Court for arraignment. Detective Fitzpatrick testified at the suppression hearing that, at the beginning of the sixth interview, he removed defendant from his cell block and informed him that he wanted to clear up some more inconsistencies    [i]f [defendant] wished to talk to [the detectives] about it again. Detective Fitzpatrick stated that defendant did agree to speak with the detectives again. The detective further testified that defendant was then reminded of his Miranda rights, of which he had been apprised the night before. Detective Fitzpatrick stated that, at the time of the sixth interview, defendant was still eager to speak to us, although the detective acknowledged that defendant's tone had changed. The detective described defendant as having had a mission to tell us his side of the story at [that] point. Detective Fitzpatrick stated that defendant never sought to terminate the sixth interview and never asked for counsel. He stated that, after that interview was concluded ( i.e., at approximately 2:10 or 2:20 p.m.), [13] defendant was taken to the District Court. [14] Detective Mattera testified at the suppression hearing that he was the officer responsible for this case and that he was present at the police station when defendant was brought to the cell block at approximately 1:00 a.m. on August 2. The detective stated that between 9:00 a.m. (when he came back to the police station) and approximately 1:30 p.m. (when the sixth interview was conducted) on August 2, he was [p]utting together paper work, putting together statements, preparing for the arraignment. He acknowledged that the Sixth Division District Court was less than five minutes away from the police station. Detective Mattera testified that it would take only approximately five minutes to physically fill out a complaint form. However, the detective further testified that he did not arrange for defendant's arraignment immediately upon his arrival at the station at 9:00 a.m. because, at that point in time, he needed to compile paper work and facts needed to be collected. The detective stated that the investigating officers had about five hours of taped statements [that they] needed to go through and get the facts straight before [they] did the complaint form. Detective Mattera explained that he knew the crime with which he was going to charge defendant, but that he needed to review defendant's statements from the five interviews on August 1; he described those statements as containing a lot of inconsistencies. Detective Mattera further stated that, although it was not done at his direction, he had knowledge of and gave his approval to the sixth interview. With respect to the circumstances surrounding the sixth interview, defendant testified that he was placed in a cell before midnight on August 1. He further testified that he remained in the cell and was not brought to District Court on the morning of August 2. He added that he was allowed out of the cell block in the early afternoon of August 2, when he met with Detective Fitzpatrick, who asked him additional questionswhich questions defendant testified he answered. Based on the just-summarized testimony, the hearing justice held that defendant's presentment before the district court was not unnecessarily delayed. The hearing justice stated that the presentment was reasonably prompt. The hearing justice further commented that prompt presentation does not mean immediate. The hearing justice further stated that, not only did he find there to have been no unnecessary delay, but he also found that the statements which defendant made early in the afternoon of August 2 were made voluntarily and were consistent with his earlier statements. The hearing justice stated that he credit[ed] the officers' testimony that the defendant was still willing and eager to offer statements to the police. The hearing justice additionally credited Detective Fitzpatrick's statement that defendant was on a mission to tell his side of the story, which by [that] time had become multi-faceted. The hearing justice therefore found, by clear and convincing evidence and based upon his appraisal of the totality of the circumstances, that defendant's statements were given freely and voluntarily    [and] without compulsion or overreaching on the part of the officers. The hearing justice therefore denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements that he made in the sixth interview. [15] On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress his statements to the Providence police detectives during the sixth interview. He contends that the delay in presentment before a judge of the District Court was unnecessary and was causative of the sixth interviewwhich he contends necessitates the suppression of the statements that he made during the sixth interview that took place during the period of delay.