Opinion ID: 1567587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Oral Statement

Text: The State contends the defendant's statement that she had been drinking alcohol should not have been suppressed. The State avers the trial court erred when it ruled Chief Ambeau's testimony was hearsay because well established jurisprudence has recognized that hearsay testimony is admissible in a suppression hearing. Moreover, relying on State v. Levy, 292 So.2d 220 (La.1974), the State asserts Miranda warnings were not required at this point because the testimony of Chief Ambeau shows defendant was neither under arrest nor detained when she made her statement about drinking. On the other hand, the defendant asserts the trial court correctly applied the rules of evidence in this hearing on defendant's motion to suppress. Focusing on La.Code Evid. art. 1101, [5] the defendant contends that formal evidentiary rules apply in hearings on motions to suppress evidence. Thus, she contends the trial court properly refused to consider Chief Ambeau's hearsay testimony. For reasons which follow, we find the trial court erred when it excluded Chief Ambeau's testimony. After reviewing the provisions of La.Code Evid. art. 104 and 1101, it is evident confusion may exist on the question of whether hearsay evidence may be admissible at a hearing on a motion to suppress. Such confusion is exacerbated by one of the Comments to La.Code Evid. art. 1101 which states that Subparagraph (B)(8) coupled with Paragraph A continues in effect the requirement that formal evidentiary rules generally apply in hearings on motions to suppress evidence. Notwithstanding the facial confusion and the text of the Comment, we find resolution of the question in La.Code Evid. art. 1101(C)(1) which explicitly states the provisions of the Code of Evidence are not applicable to [t]he determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under [La.Code Evid.] Article 104. As stated in Article 104, [preliminary questions concerning ... the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court ... In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. Accordingly, we find the exclusionary clause of La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B)(8), when considered in pari materiae with La.Code Evid. art. 104, may be read to generally exempt hearings on motions to suppress evidence from the rules of evidence except with respect to privileges. Thus, La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B) may be read harmoniously with the provisions of La.Code Evid. art. 104(A). Furthermore, even though this Court has never elaborated on the interplay of Articles 104 and 1101 of the Code of Evidence, our research shows we have recognized hearsay rules do not apply in hearings on motions to suppress evidence. State v. Castleberry, 99-1388 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749; [6] see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172-75, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence.... There is, therefore, much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence, the exclusionary rules, aside from rules of privilege, should not be applicable; and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel.) After reviewing the jurisprudence and the provisions of La.Code Evid. arts. 104 and 1101, we find the trial court erred when it failed to consider Chief Ambeau's testimony which was drawn, at least in part, from Officer Casto's written accident report. When the trial court considered whether the defendant was under arrest or detained when she made her statement to Officer Casto and whether her statement that she consumed alcoholic beverages was admissible, it should have taken into consideration Chief Ambeau's testimony, including the portion drawn from Officer Casto's police report, when it ruled on the defendant's motion to suppress. Having addressed this preliminary evidentiary matter, we now turn our attention to the question of whether Miranda warnings were necessary as a prerequisite to the admissibility of the defendant's statement. The obligation to provide Miranda warnings attaches only when a person is questioned by law enforcement after he has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State v. Payne, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 934. Custody is decided by two distinct inquiries: an objective assessment of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation to determine whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of the degree associated with formal arrest; and, second, an evaluation of how a reasonable person in the position of the interviewee would gauge the breadth of his freedom of action. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994), ( citing California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275(1983)( per curiam ), Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714(1977)( per curiam )). See Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995). As such, Miranda warnings are not required when officers conduct preliminary, non-custodial, on-the-scene questioning to determine whether a crime has been committed, unless the accused is subjected to arrest or a significant restraint short of formal arrest. State v. Davis, 448 So.2d 645, 651-652 (La.1984); State v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 264, 266 (La.1983); State v. Thompson, 399 So.2d 1161, 1165-1167 (La. 1981), dissent at 400 So.2d 1080; State v. Menne, 380 So.2d 14, 17 (La.1980), cert, denied sub nom. Louisiana v. Menne, 449 U.S. 833, 101 S.Ct. 104, 66 L.Ed.2d 39(1980); State v. Hodges, 349 So.2d 250, 255-257 (La.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1074, 98 S.Ct. 1262, 55 L.Ed.2d 779 (1978); State v. Brown, 340 So.2d 1306, 1308 (La. 1976); State v. Watkins, 526 So.2d 357, 359-360 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). Thus, an individual's responses to on-the-scene and non-custodial questioning, particularly when carried out in public, are admissible without Miranda warnings. See State v. Davis, supra (Question, Who shot the deer? directed to a group of hunters did not point the finger of suspicion at any one person, even though wildlife agent knew that adult female deer had been taken and that citizens were holding the culprits, and therefore did not require Miranda warnings); State v. Thompson, supra (question of how he came by the blood spots on his shirt, asked by officer of man in motel lobby identified as perpetrator of assault and who agreed to talk with the officer, was to learn if crime had occurred and therefore occurred in a pre-custodial setting which did not require Miranda warnings); State v. Mitchell, supra (question asked by an Arkansas deputy after handcuffing a drunken Monroe driver for traffic offenses and noticing dried blood on his neck, What happened? did not amount to custodial interrogation for Miranda purposes; defendant's reply, My wife shot me, admissible without Miranda warnings under time pressure of finding injured wife). Similarly, although a motorist stopped for a traffic violation or an individual detained in a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion has had his freedom of movement curtailed in a significant way, until an arrest actually occurs, these Fourth Amendment seizures do not constitute custody for Miranda purposes. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)(The comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions of this sort explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that Terry stops are subject to the dictates of Miranda. ). In the present case, Chief Ambeau had available the content of Officer Casto's report which described the circumstances surrounding the preliminary stages of the investigation into the accident and subsequent death of the defendant's passenger. In particular, Chief Ambeau could refer to the report which showed the defendant stated she did not see a stop sign when she rounded the curve of the road and came upon the intersection, and that she had two Smirnoffs and two Budlights. Moreover, Chief Ambeau, testified, in part on the basis of his personal observations on the scene, that defendant was not placed in handcuffs before she was taken by ambulance to the hospital, and also on the basis of his review of the written report of Officer Casto, that defendant had not been arrested for driving while intoxicated before she was transported to the hospital. [7] Although it cannot be gainsaid that the State did not fully develop the facts related to the what transpired after the defendant's accident, the record does not support the trial court's finding that although Officer Casto may not have placed the defendant under arrest, certainly [the defendant] was being detained... and should have been advised of her rights.... Trial Tr. at 116. Under the facts established in the record, even as sketchily developed at the hearing on the motion to suppress, Miranda warnings were not required. Therefore, the trial court erred when it suppressed the defendant's statements at the accident scene. For these reasons, we reverse the trial court's ruling to the extent it ordered suppressed the defendant's statements made at the scene of the vehicular accident to Officer Cody Casto.