Opinion ID: 2365208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failing to file a motion to suppress

Text: [¶ 14] Carter claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the interrogation video, which was played for the jury. Specifically, Carter argues that his statements were involuntary because the detectives who were interviewing him would not allow him to sleep, and Carter's trial counsel's failure to file a suppression motion, on that ground, constitutes ineffectiveness. [¶ 15] The first step in determining whether Carter's trial counsel was ineffective is to determine whether Carter's statements to detectives were involuntary. If they were voluntary, the motion would have been unsuccessful, and no prejudice resulted from the failure to bring the motion. Dettloff, 2007 WY 29, ¶¶ 17-19, 152 P.3d at 382-83 (If a suppression motion would have been brought, but denied, the defendant suffers no prejudice from the failure to bring such a motion.). The law relating to voluntariness of statements in Wyoming was stated in State v. Evans, 944 P.2d 1120 (Wyo. 1997): Confessions, admissions, and statements are constitutionally required to be voluntary by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Art. 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 478, 92 S.Ct. 619, 621, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); Black v. State, 820 P.2d 969, 971 (Wyo. 1991). The voluntariness requirement has been a part of the United States Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence since its decision in Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542, 18 S.Ct. 183, 187, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). Additional constitutional requirements concerning voluntariness were imposed by the Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), for custodial interrogations. It is well established, however, that satisfying Miranda does not resolve the question of voluntariness. A confession may be found involuntary because of the means used to obtain it. Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305, 310 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 992, 88 S.Ct. 489, 19 L.Ed.2d 484 (1967); People v. Scott, 198 Colo. 371, 600 P.2d 68, 69 (1979). A confession which is the product of either mental or physical coercion by the government is untrustworthy and cannot be used for any purpose in the trial of the case. In Wyoming, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, under the totality of the circumstances, that a confession, admission, or statement was given voluntarily. Garcia v. State, 777 P.2d 603, 606 (Wyo.1989); Dodge v. State, 562 P.2d 303, 308-09 (Wyo. 1977). Admission of an involuntary confession offends due process, whether or not the defendant was in custody when the confession was given. Black, 820 P.2d at 971.... .... Statements are made voluntarily if they are the product of a citizen's free and deliberate choice rather than of governmental intimidation, coercion, or deception. Bravo [ v. State ], 897 P.2d [1303,] 1305 [(Wyo. 1995) ]. Involuntariness requires coercive state action, such as trickery, psychological pressure, or mistreatment. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 708, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 1762, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 521, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986)). We have held that voluntariness must proceed from the spontaneous suggestion of the citizen's own mind, free from the influence of any extraneous disturbing cause. Maki v. State, 18 Wyo. 481, 487, 112 P. 334, 335 (1911). In State v. Jones, 73 Wyo. 122, 276 P.2d 445 (Wyo.1954), we quoted from Wharton on Criminal Evidence that even a slight inducement held out by such a person [in a position of authority] renders the confession involuntary. Jones, 73 Wyo. at 144, 276 P.2d at 455; see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 753, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (similarly holding that even a slight inducement will render a statement involuntary). Jones quoted approvingly of a New Mexico decision: When direct or implied promises made by the person in authority are shown the law cannot measure the force of the influence thereby produced; neither can the courts determine in what degree they affected the mind of the accused and to what extent they entered into his decision to confess. Hence, the rule is established that, ... confessions which are made [under such conditions] must be excluded. Jones, 73 Wyo. at 141, 276 P.2d at 453 (quoting State v. Dena, 28 N.M. 479, 214 P. 583, 584 (1923)). Our later decisions summarize that a confession offends due process if the suspect's will was overborne by the police and the suspect's capacity for self-determination was seriously impaired. Yung v. State, 906 P.2d 1028, 1034 (Wyo. 1995). In Wyoming, coercive police tactics violate the due process clause of WYO. CONST. Art. 1, § 6 and statements elicited pursuant to these tactics may be suppressed. Yung, 906 P.2d at 1035. This Court has not yet decided whether coercion is a necessary predicate to finding that a confession is involuntary under our state constitution; however, coercive government activity is a necessary predicate to finding involuntariness within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Garcia, 777 P.2d at 606. Once the evidence establishes state actor coercion, a court must consider the effect of that coercion on the defendant's choice to confess or make an admission or statement. Id. Unless the court finds that coercive conduct caused the defendant to speak, the court must find the statement to be voluntary and the statement is admissible. Id. We recognize that coercion can be mental as well as physical. Id. The use of tricks or factual misstatements in and of themselves does not render a confession involuntary. Id. .... Relevant factors concerning the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation include: whether the defendant was in custody or was free to leave and was aware of the situation; whether Miranda warnings were given prior to any interrogation and whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights; whether the defendant had the opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to the interrogation; whether the challenged statement was made during the course of an interrogation or instead was volunteered; whether any overt or implied threat or promise was directed to the defendant; the method and style employed by the interrogator in questioning the defendant and the length and place of the interrogation; and the defendant's mental and physical condition immediately prior to and during the interrogation, as well as educational background, employment status, and prior experience with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 845 (Colo.1991); see also Yung, 906 P.2d at 1034; Witt v. State, 892 P.2d 132, 139-40 (Wyo.1995); Vigil v. State, 859 P.2d 659, 665 (Wyo.1993); Dice v. State, 825 P.2d 379, 386 (Wyo.1992); Black, 820 P.2d at 971-72; Garcia, 777 P.2d at 607; Stone [ v. State ], 745 P.2d [1344,] 1348 [ (Wyo.1987) ]; Frias v. State, 722 P.2d 135, 142 (Wyo. 1986). Evans, 944 P.2d at 1124-26. [¶ 16] Carter claims that his statements were involuntary because he was sleep deprived and intoxicated at the time of the interrogation. [1] Specifically, Carter points to numerous portions of the interrogation video in which he complains to the detectives that he is tired or that he just wants to sleep and another portion of the interrogation video in which Carter told the detectives that he had approximately a six pack of beer and a pint to drink that night. We have recognized that sleep deprivation and intoxication are factors which can make a statement involuntary. See Burnett v. State, 997 P.2d 1023, 1026 (Wyo.2000) (discussing the requirement that sleep deprivation must be used as a means of coercive state action in order for it to make a statement involuntary) (citing People v. Valdez, 969 P.2d 208, 213 (Colo.1998)); Siler v. State, 2005 WY 73, ¶ 25, 115 P.3d 14, 26 (Wyo.2005) (Evidence of intoxication by itself does not render a statement per se involuntary, but will do so if the impairment [is] so great as to deprive an individual of a capacity to understand the meaning of his statements.); Lonquest v. State, 495 P.2d 575, 582 (Wyo.1972) (same). [¶ 17] In the above-cited Burnett case, the appellant raised a similar sleep-deprivation argument to that raised here. In Burnett, the appellant claimed that her trial counsel was ineffective because her counsel should have pursued a motion to suppress her statement, given to police, arguing that it was involuntary due to getting very little sleep the night before she gave the statement, she had difficulty standing up to men, and she was wearing her nightgown when she was taken to the police station and interviewed. Burnett, 997 P.2d at 1026. In upholding Burnett's statements as voluntarily given, we stated, Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that Burnett's claims regarding the circumstances of her statement were entirely true, there still was no basis for the suppression of her statement. `Involuntariness requires coercive state action, such as trickery, psychological pressure, or mistreatment.' State v. Evans, 944 P.2d 1120, 1125 (Wyo.1997) (quoting Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 708, 113 S.Ct. 1745, [1762,] 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). Absent such coercive state action, we will not determine that a statement is involuntary. See People v. Valdez, 969 P.2d 208, 213 (Colo.1998) (Absent evidence that the officers deprived Valdez of food and rest as a means of physical punishment, the fact that Valdez happened to be hungry and tired does not support a conclusion that his statements were involuntary[.]). Id. at 1026. Carter attempts to distinguish Burnett from this case by stating that the Court in Burnett did not find any coercive state action, but in the current case the coercive state action is evident on the face of the exhibit, where Mr. Carter is repeatedly refused sleep and told that he will not be allowed to sleep until he answers the questions of the detectives. This echoes the language of Valdez, quoted by this Court in Burnett, above, only here, there is evidence that Mr. Carter was deprived... of ... rest. [¶ 18] While it is true that Carter requested to be left alone so that he could sleep, the mere fact that the detectives continued to ask Carter for information is not dispositive of whether Carter's statements were voluntary. As noted above, numerous factors are considered under a totality of the circumstances test to make a voluntariness determination. Evans, 944 P.2d at 1126; see supra ¶ 15. Application of those factors to this particular situation supports the thesis that Carter's statements were voluntary. Carter was provided Miranda warnings prior to the interrogation; Carter acknowledged to detectives that he understood his rights; Carter is capable of reading and writing; Carter has a GED; Carter was 45 years old at the time of the interrogation; Carter is experienced in dealing with police having been arrested dozens of times in the past; no threats or promises were made by detectives; the interrogation was only just over an hour in length; Carter did not complain about sleep throughout the entire interrogation; sleep deprivation was not being used as a form of physical punishment; Carter was permitted to sleep for several hours from the time he was arrested, at 10:00 p.m., until the time the interrogation began, at approximately 4:30 a.m.; and Carter was not denied food or waterin fact, Carter was provided water at least twice upon request. Furthermore, a review of the interrogation video reveals that Carter was lucid and coherent throughout most of the interrogation. He seemed fully to understand what was going on and maintained his denial of involvement in the murder throughout the interrogation. Moreover, when we compare this case with other cases finding statements to be involuntary due to the totality of the circumstances, including sleep deprivation, it is evident that this case is factually much different than those cases, which compels our decision to uphold Carter's statements as voluntary. See Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 520-21, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 1153-54, 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968) (statement held involuntary where defendant requested counsel and was denied access, was not advised of his rights, was not provided food or necessary medication for high blood pressure for over thirteen hours, and defendant claimed he did not sleep from time he was arrested at 10:45 p.m. until he provided a confession at 11:30 a.m. the next day); Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 707-711, 87 S.Ct. 1338, 1339-41, 18 L.Ed.2d 423 (1967) (third confession by defendant involuntary because, although not denied food or sleep prior to confession, it could not be separated from facts of first two confessions where defendant was held in custody for 36 hours prior to being taken before a magistrate, had no contact with a lawyer, had little sleep or food, was administered several polygraphs, was driven on a 600 mile road trip, detained at least three different police stations, and appeared to be sick); and Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 153-55, 64 S.Ct. 921, 926, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944) (statements involuntary where, for 36 hours, defendant was held incommunicado, without sleep, and was questioned by numerous officers). Given the totality of the circumstances, and the cases cited herein, we cannot say that Carter's will was overborne due to lack of sleep, which would render his statements involuntary. [¶ 19] Turning now to Carter's argument relating to intoxication, we have said Intoxication from alcohol does not per se establish involuntariness. State v. Baker, 4 Kan.App.2d 340, 606 P.2d 120, 123 (1980); and State v. Tucker, 32 Wash.App. 83, 645 P.2d 711, 713 (1982). Instead, for intoxication to render a confession involuntary, the impairment must be so great as to deprive an individual of a capacity to understand the meaning of his statements. See Lee v. State , Okla.Crim., 700 P.2d 1017, 1020 (1985). Even though a defendant appears intoxicated, the fact that he understood what he was doing, carried on a conversation and responded to questions will render the statements admissible. State v. Curry, 127 Ariz. 1, 617 P.2d 785, 787 (App.1980). The proper inquiry regarding intoxication is whether a confession cannot be said to be the product of rational intellect and free will because of extreme intoxication. State v. Corona, 60 Or.App. 500, 655 P.2d 216, 219-220 (1982). Stone v. State, 745 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Wyo. 1987). We have also stated: The general rule applicable to confessions obtained from persons under intoxication has been well stated to the effect that `proof that the accused was intoxicated at the time he confessed his guilt of crime will not, without more, bar the reception of the confession in evidence. But if it is shown that the accused was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements, then the confession is inadmissible.' ... .... Lonquest v. State, 495 P.2d 575, 582 (Wyo.[1972]), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1006, 93 S.Ct. 432, 34 L.Ed.2d 299 (1972) ( quoting People v. Schompert, 19 N.Y.2d 300, 279 N.Y.S.2d 515, 226 N.E.2d 305, 308, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 874, 88 S.Ct. 164, 19 L.Ed.2d 157 (1967)). Siler v. State, 2005 WY 73, ¶ 25, 115 P.3d 14, 26 (Wyo.2005). [¶ 20] As noted above, Carter was coherent during the interrogation. Although he denied any knowledge of the events about which the detectives were questioning him, he seemed to understand his situation and what the detectives were asking. He was able to answer questions relating to his name, date of birth, people he knew from the Casper area, details about the general location where the murder occurred, and to provide specific details about his whereabouts the night in question. There is no evidence of such a level of intoxication that would cause us to doubt the video, where he appeared to be coherent and able to understand the meaning of his statements. The fact that Carter claimed to have had approximately a six pack of beer and a pint to drink that night does not by itself show that his statements were involuntary. Id. at ¶ 25, at 26 (evidence that defendant was intoxicated at time of confession will not, by itself, bar admission). Furthermore, although determination of intoxication as it relates to voluntariness of statements is done on a case-by-case basis, it is worth noting that we have upheld statements in situations where the evidence of intoxication of the defendant was much more certain and extreme than in this case. See Id. at ¶¶ 23-28, at 25-28 (statements held voluntary although witnesses corroborated defendant's claims of excessive drinking the night prior to his early morning confession and officer's statements of strong odor of alcohol on defendant's breath); Stone v. State, 745 P.2d 1344, 1347-48 (Wyo.1987) (statements upheld where defendant's blood alcohol content was between 0.15 and 0.20 around time of statements and officer noted an of odor of alcohol coming from defendant); Lonquest, 495 P.2d at 579-82 (statements upheld where defendant's blood alcohol content was 0.374, one-and-one-half hours prior to statements). Accordingly, we cannot say that Carter's statements were involuntary. [¶ 21] Therefore, because it has not been shown that Carter's will was overborne due to sleep deprivation or intoxication, it also has not been shown that Carter's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his statements based on those grounds.