Opinion ID: 1293641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of Pre- Miranda Statements

Text: The defendant filed a pretrial motion seeking to suppress statements he made to Agent Hagen while in custody. The district court denied his motion, and the defendant's statements were admitted at trial. He claims that the district court erred. An appellate court reviews the district court's decision regarding the suppression of a confession using a dual standard. The factual findings are reviewed using a substantial competent evidence standard. An appellate court will not reweigh the evidence and will give deference to the trial court's factual findings. The ultimate legal conclusion drawn from the trial court's factual findings is a question of law which is reviewed de novo. State v. White, 275 Kan. 580, 596-97, 67 P.3d 138 (2003). An appellate court accepts as true the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom that support the trial court's findings. State v. Combs, 280 Kan. 45, 118, P.3d 1259 (2005). Agent Hagen testified that he and Detective Forrester traveled to Sumpter County, Alabama, to interview the defendant regarding the 1982 murder of S.B. and to determine whether he was the same individual who had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest. The Sumpter County Sheriff was asked to bring the defendant in for questioning. During this process, the sheriff drew a weapon on the defendant, told him he was under arrest, and transported him to the sheriff's department. The defendant was placed in an office with Hagen and Forrester at the Sumpter County Jail. The defendant asked why they were there. Hagen responded by identifying himself, saying that he was from Kansas, and indicating that they were investigating a case in Kansas regarding an individual who was using his social security number. The defendant responded, I've never been to Kansas. Hagen informed him that they needed to read him his Miranda rights, they read through the Miranda waiver, and the defendant initialed each section and indicated he understood. Before signing the document, the defendant asked again why the officers were there. Hagen told him that an individual named S.B. was found dead in Salina, Kansas, and that someone named Robert Moore, who was using the defendant's social security number, had some connection with the case. The defendant said he did not know S.B., he did not know Robert Moore, and that he might have been in Wichita in 1969 or 1970 working as a cook after he got out of the Marines. Hagen asked the defendant if he would like to sign the waiver of rights form, and the defendant asked to talk with his girlfriend. After talking to his girlfriend, the defendant declined to sign the waiver and said he needed an attorney. At that point, Hagen told the defendant that they had an arrest warrant for him and that Hagen had a photograph of the defendant from the relevant time period. He showed the defendant the photograph, said that the defendant was going to be maintained in Alabama, and asked the defendant if he wanted to be transported back to Kansas. The defendant said he was not making any statements until he talked to his attorney, and the conversation ended. In its findings and conclusions, the district court held that the defendant's statements were voluntary, spontaneous statements not elicited by an interrogation and the comments and actions of the officers did not amount to the functional equivalent of an interrogation. The court reasoned that Hagen had briefly explained why he was there in direct response to the defendant's question and it was the defendant who contemporaneously blurted out his statements in an apparent attempt to exculpate himself. The defendant argues the district court violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights by admitting his pre- Miranda inculpatory statements because they were elicited by the functional equivalent of a custodial interrogation. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. [Citation omitted.] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), holds that the State may not use statements stemming from a custodial interrogation of a defendant unless the State demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. [Citation omitted.]  Miranda warnings come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. [Citation omitted.] An objective standard is used to judge whether an interrogation was custodial. The proper analysis is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation. [Citation omitted.] State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 68, 82 P.3d 470 (2004). No dispute exists that the defendant was in custody at the time he made the statements. Thus, our analysis focuses on whether the agent's actions constituted an interrogation. `[T]he term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation.' Dudley, 264 Kan. at 643 (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 64 L. Ed. 2d 297, 100 S. Ct. 1682 [1980]). Hebert, 277 Kan. at 69. `It is well established that volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by the Miranda holding. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, an accused's statement may be found to be voluntary and spontaneous and, thus, admissible even though it is made after the accused is arrested and in custody.' [Citations omitted.] State v. Richardson, 256 Kan. 69, 86, 883 P.2d 1107 (1994) (quoting State v. Mooney, 10 Kan. App. 2d 477, 480, 702 P.2d 328, rev. denied 238 Kan. 879 [1985]). The defendant contends that Hagen's statements were not routine booking questions but were designed to elicit incriminating responses. He contends the first deceptive statementthat they were talking to him because someone named Robert Moore was using his social security number in Kansaswas designed to see if the defendant would admit that he was in fact the same person as Robert Moore. He further contends that a reasonable person would feel that Hagen was expecting a response from his second statement that Robert Moore had been involved in a homicide in Kansas. The defendant relies primarily upon Hebert, in which this court found that the following comments made by a KBI agent prior to administering Miranda warnings constituted an interrogation: `Talk to you a little bit and get both sides of the story. I've only heard one side of the story and, obviously, there's always two sides of a story here and I'd like in your words, your input and tell me what happened and explain in your words and coming from you. Would you like the opportunity to tell me your side of the story?' 277 Kan. at 67. In Hebert, although the agent claimed that he was shocked that the defendant responded with an incriminating statement, this court clarified that it was not concerned with the agent's subjective feelings but whether the officer should have known the words were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. We reasoned that the officer should have known that the defendant, who had made no previous statement, who knew he had shot the officer, and who had been in custody for several hours, might be anxious to take him up on the request for his version of the events. We concluded that this was not a routine booking question but rather was designed to gain information from the defendant about the shooting. 277 Kan. at 70. Likewise, in State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 936 P.2d 1364 (1997), during the first hour of the interview, the officers asked Ninci if he recognized a picture of the prime murder suspect and why his car was seen at the victim's house the same week as the murder. We held that the officers should have known these questions were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Ninci and thus had been subjected to an interrogation. 262 Kan. at 36. In contrast, we found no interrogation had occurred in the following cases. In State v. Payne, 273 Kan. 466, 44 P.3d 419 (2002), Payne asked why he was being taken into custody prior to being Mirandized, and the officer responded that it was due to a suspicious death. The officer asked Payne who owned the car he was removed from and Payne said it belonged to Eddie Harris. The officer asked how long Payne had possessed the car and he responded for about 3 days. Without being told that Harris was the murder victim, Payne asked, `So Eddie Harris is dead?' 273 Kan. at 468. The officer responded that Payne needed to talk to the detectives about that. This court concluded that Payne's statements were not the result of interrogation and were made voluntarily. 273 Kan. at 479. In State v. Ferguson, 254 Kan. 62, 864 P.2d 693 (1993), prior to administering Miranda rights, the officer introduced himself to Ferguson and asked her if she needed a drink of water, if she needed to use the restroom, and if she needed any medical assistance. She responded in the negative and then asked the officer `if [the victim] was dead.' The officer responded, `Yes, and' Ferguson said, `Didn't mean to kill him,' `Didn't want to,' and `I'm tired of this,' or `I'm tired of it.' 254 Kan. at 64, 84-85. This court concluded that Ferguson's various statements were not the result of interrogation and appeared to be more voluntary than involuntary and more spontaneous than not. 254 Kan. at 85. In State v. Jones, 222 Kan. 56, 563 P.2d 1021 (1977), Jones and Miller were placed in a line-up after they were arrested. After the line-up, Jones initiated an exchange with a police officer by asking if either he or Miller had been identified. When the officer answered, `Yes,' Jones stated, `Miller wasn't with me on the robbery.' 222 Kan. at 60. This court upheld the district court's admission of the statement on the ground that there was substantial competent evidence that [t]he statement was not the product of an interrogation, but resulted from a conversation initiated by defendant. 222 Kan. at 60. This case is distinguishable from the exchanges found to be interrogations in Hebert and Ninci and is more analogous with those in Payne, Ferguson, and Jones. The agent in this case did not ask the defendant any questions. The defendant initiated the statements by repeatedly asking why the officers were there. The agent's statements to the defendant were in direct response to questions initiated by the defendant, and they were simply a description of the officers' investigation. As noted by the district court, it was the defendant who voluntarily and spontaneously blurted out his statements in an apparent attempt to exculpate himself. Although the defendant characterizes the agent's first statement as deceptive, it was a true statement demonstrating how the events had progressed which led the law enforcement officers to Alabama. The agent did not initially say he was investigating a homicide case because that has a tendency to shock people. The agent's explanations of why they had contacted the defendant were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. We conclude that the factual findings of the district court are supported by substantial competent evidence and support its legal conclusion regarding admissibility. We hold that the district court properly admitted the defendant's pre- Miranda statements into evidence.