Opinion ID: 1160456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Buch's Motion to Suppress

Text: Buch argues that the motion to suppress his statement [11] made to the police as a result of custodial interrogation was improperly denied because, applying the common law tests[] to both defendant's testimony and the court's findings, defendant's statement to the police was involuntary[.] [O]ur review of whether [Buch's] statement was in fact coerced requires determination of whether the findings of the trial court are clearly erroneous. State v. Villeza, 72 Haw. 327, 331, 817 P.2d 1054, 1056 (1991). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. State v. Ganal, 81 Hawai`i 358, 368, 917 P.2d 370, 380 (1996) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Moreover, [a]ppellate review of whether a defendant's custodial statement to the police is the product of coercion requires us to `examine the entire record and make an independent determination of the ultimate issue of voluntariness' based upon that review and `the totality of circumstances surrounding the defendant's statement.' State v. Kelekolio, 74 Haw. 479, 502, 849 P.2d 58, 69 (1993) (brackets omitted) (quoting Villeza, 72 Haw. at 330-31, 817 P.2d at 1056). However, it is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trial judge. Domingo v. State, 76 Hawai`i 237, 242, 873 P.2d 775, 780 (1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Buch testified that, prior to signing HPD form 81 and giving his tape-recorded statement, Detective Mimaki threatened him with higher bail, loss of his paramedic license, and return to prison for a parole violation if Buch did not give a statement. Detective Mimaki denied making those threats. The circuit court, as trier of fact, implicitly found that Detective Mimaki's testimony was more credible. See, e.g., FOF 15 and 18 (finding that Detective Mimaki's conduct and practice during the interrogation was not egregious, his questions were not designed to illicit incorrect statements but to be truthful[,] and that Defendant understood his Constitutional Rights and Defendant did waive his rights voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.). As trier of fact at a motion to suppress hearing, it is the duty of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses and resolve factual conflicts in the testimony. See State v. Patterson, 58 Haw. 462, 468, 571 P.2d 745, 749 (1977). Apparently recognizing that an appellate court will not review the trial court's credibility determinations, Buch does not argue on appeal that he was threatened. Nor does Buch challenge any of the circuit court's findings as clearly erroneous, but, rather, he argues that those findings support his contention that the statement was involuntary. Specifically, he cites the following FOF: 5. Defendant was asked about whether he was on any medication and he indicated he was for hypertension condition. Defendant also indicated that the medication did not impair his thinking or judgment in any[]way. . . . . 9. Defendant has been arrested in the past and convicted. 10. Defendant has been subject to mental and physical abuse during his prior arrest and has filed complaints against 6 officers resulting in their suspension. . . . . 16. Defendant appeared to be well aware of the criminal process. He is not a novice, not intimidated or overwhelmed by it. His prior experience of being beaten has not, in any[]way, affected his voluntariness in giving the statement. Buch asserts that these findings demonstrate that the defendant's statements were not voluntarily made due to the interaction of the social pressure exerted upon the defendant by the detective with the defendant's preexisting physical, mental, and emotional conditions. By social pressure, Buch is apparently referring to Detective Mimaki's repeated comments, during the course of the interrogation, that you're lying. Based on our examination of the entire record, including the tape recording of Buch's statement, it is our independent determination that these remarks were not accompanied by any threat, were made in a normal tone of voice, and, although phrased differently, are the functional equivalent of the exhortations to tell the truth that this court approved of in Kelekolio. In that case, the court explained that exhortations to tell the truth, unaccompanied by threat or promise, do not render a subsequent confession involuntary because such exhortations are calculated to enhance, rather than diminish, the trustworthiness of an accused's inculpatory statement or confession. Accordingly, the proposition that a police investigator's unwillingness to accept a suspect's initial version of events at face value amounts to coercion per se is not only naive and disingenuous, but falls of its own weight; were we to accept it, the legitimate right of law enforcement agencies to seek voluntary confessions would be rendered nugatory. 74 Haw. at 505, 849 P.2d at 70 (citations omitted). With respect to Buch's pre-existing physical, mental, and emotional conditions, we have endorsed the general rule that, in the absence of insanity or mental depletion, neither the voluntary character nor the admissibility of a confession is affected by the mental instability of the person making it. Id. at 503, 849 P.2d at 70 (quoting State v. Kreps, 4 Haw.App. 72, 77, 661 P.2d 711, 715 (1983)). The facts that Buch (1) was taking medication to control his hypertension and (2) had experienced prior physical abuse at the hands of police do not rise to the level of insanity or mental depletion. Upon review of the entire record and considering the totality of the circumstances surrounding Buch's statement, it is our independent determination that Buch's statement was voluntarily and freely given. Buch's voice on the tape is calm, and he remained lucid throughout the interview. He indicated that, although he was taking medication for hypertension, the medication did not affect his thinking or judgment. He never indicated any desire to terminate the interview and never admitted to having committed the offense. In fact, he challenged Detective Mimaki to charge him and set bail so he could go to trial and be vindicated by a jury. Furthermore, the record indicates that Buch was not only well educated in general, but particularly sophisticated with respect to the criminal process and his rights as an accused. We, therefore, hold that Buch knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights to counsel and to remain silent and that he voluntarily gave his statement to the police. Consequently, the motion to suppress was properly denied.