Opinion ID: 2210475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Payton suppression issue

Text: When arrested, defendant was found to have the murder victim's necklace. After his arrest and after being given a Miranda warning, defendant made several statements to police officers. These statements came into evidence at the trial through the testimony of the officers. In these statements defendant gave conflicting stories, including, however, admitting he had his hand on the gun when the first shot was fired, that he had sold Lillian Dunn the revolver used in the killing, and that he believed Dunn would rob the victim to pay for the revolver. Acting on information from Kenneth Fisher who said he saw defendant Roby shoot McIntyre, the police, without a warrant, arrested defendant at the duplex where he lived. Defendant now claims his arrest involved a nonconsensual, nonexigent entry into his home, and, therefore, the victim's necklace and defendant's out-of-court statements to the police must be suppressed. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The state argues we should construe our state constitution to follow New York v. Harris, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 1640, 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), which recently held that the Fourth Amendment does not require suppression of statements made by a suspect after receiving a Miranda warning subsequent to an unlawful, warrantless, domiciliary arrest. We need not decide if we would follow Harris. It is enough here that the Payton issue was never raised in the court below and, consequently, was waived. At the omnibus hearing there was no claim of a warrantless, domiciliary arrest in violation of Payton. While defense counsel spoke of no exigent circumstances and the lack of a warrant, this was only within the context of her contention that probable cause for arrest was lacking. Only now on appeal does defendant raise the Payton issue. [1] We do not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure. State v. Sorenson, 441 N.W.2d 455, 457 (Minn. 1989).