Opinion ID: 1855796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: February 16, 1995 Interrogation

Text: Detectives Palmer and Krebs questioned appellant again on February 16, 1995. Because Lattu had just confessed and appellant was now the primary suspect in the murder, the detectives advised appellant of her Miranda rights prior to questioning and videotaped the interview. At trial, Detective Krebs testified that, during this interrogation, appellant told the detectives that she had once tried to poison the victim and demonstrated that she knew how to use a bolt-action gun. The videotape shows the detectives advising appellant of her Miranda rights. Upon inquiry as to whether she understood them, appellant told the detectives that she understood that she did not have to talk to them but stated that she had nothing to hide. The detectives then told appellant about the evidence that led them to suspect her and Lattu and informed her of Lattu's confession. Appellant denied any involvement in the victim's death and, when the detectives asked about her relationship with the victim, appellant stated that she and the victim got along great but that she often got mad. At that point, the detectives asked her whether it was her or one of her personalities that got mad and whether it was possible that one of her personalities killed the victim. Appellant replied that she did not know, but that awhile back one of her other personalities tried to poison the victim. Relative to the murder weapon, appellant demonstrated that she knew how to use the victim's bolt-action big gun. At that point the detectives placed appellant under arrest. This court has stated that the fact that police officers use a sympathetic approach in interrogating a suspect does not, in itself, render a defendant's statements involuntary and it is not improper to inform a defendant of the inculpatory evidence the police have gathered. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d at 333-34. Further, the fact that a defendant is emotionally distressed does not necessarily make her statements involuntary. Id. at 334. While Palmer and Krebs' approach had sympathetic elements, appellant spoke rationally throughout most of the 45 minutes of questioning. The only question even arguably coercive was whether one of her other personalities could have committed the murder; but neither the question asked nor appellant's response, I don't know, were introduced at trial. Finally, given that appellant did not in fact confess, it cannot be said that her will was overborne by the detectives' questioning, see id. (That he adhered to this woven tapestry of lies shows that [the defendant's] will was not overborne.), and we therefore conclude that appellant's waiver of Miranda rights and her statements during the February 16, 1995 interrogation were voluntary.