Opinion ID: 2109923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suppression of Debra's Statements on April 7, 1987.

Text: Debra first asserts that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress testimony regarding incriminating statements she uttered during the interviews on April 7, 1987. Her argument is two-pronged: 1) The State failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that her statements were freely and voluntarily made; and, 2) The interviews were custodial in nature, undertaken without benefit of Miranda warnings. We reject both arguments. Our standard of review regarding voluntariness of confessions or incriminating statements is well established. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that such confessions or incriminating statements were freely and voluntarily made. State v. Faehnrich, 359 N.W.2d 895, 898 (S.D.1984); State v. Janis, 356 N.W.2d 916, 918 (S.D.1984). If the trial court finds the confession or incriminating statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, such finding is binding upon this Court unless we conclude from our review of the record that the finding is clearly erroneous. State v. Albright, 418 N.W.2d 292, 297 (S.D.1988); Faehnrich, at 898; State v. Headrick, 357 N.W.2d 268, 270 (S.D.1984). The trial court must have reviewed the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. Albright, at 297; Faehnrich, at 898. See also, State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269 (S.D.1983); State v. Lyons, 269 N.W.2d 124 (S.D.1978). In reviewing the trial court's findings on voluntariness, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. State v. Volk, 331 N.W.2d 67, 70 (S.D. 1983). On this record, we do not deem the trial court's finding to be clearly erroneous. We are not unmindful of the plenary (de novo) review rule in the federal courts. Historically, we have not adopted this rule nor do we now. We do not perceive that the fifty sovereign states have been mandated to follow the plenary review rule. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). We would not have reached a different result under that rule were it heretofore or now adopted. We have thoroughly reviewed the unique facts and conclude that the totality of the circumstances do not justify a conclusion of involuntariness. Specifically, in response to Justice Morgan's dissent on the plenary (de novo) rule in this case, the stare decisis in this Court reveals that our standard of review regarding voluntariness of confessions is well established, as set out in the following cases in which current members of this Court participated, namely: State v. Albright, 418 N.W.2d 292 (S.D. 1988) (authored by Justice Miller, joined by Justices Morgan and Henderson, with Chief Justice Wuest concurring in result, and Justice Sabers concurring on voluntariness but concurring in result because of a search warrant issue). State v. Gregg, 405 N.W.2d 49 (S.D.1987) (authorized by Justice Sabers, on reassignment, joined by Chief Justice Wuest and Justice Henderson, with Justice Morgan concurring on the suppression issue, and former Chief Justice Fosheim dissenting on a different issue). State v. Faehnrich, 359 N.W.2d 895 (S.D.1984) (a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Henderson, joined by then Chief Justice Fosheim, Justices Wollman and Morgan, and then Acting Justice Wuest). State v. Headrick, 357 N.W.2d 268 (S.D. 1984) (a unanimous opinion by then Acting Justice Wuest, joined by then Chief Justice Fosheim and Justices Wollman, Morgan and Henderson). State v. Janis, 356 N.W.2d 916 (S.D. 1984) (authored by then Chief Justice Fosheim, joined by Justices Morgan and Henderson, and Retired Justice Dunn, with Justice Wollman dissenting, on application of the facts to the clearly erroneous rule). State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269 (S.D. 1983) (authored by Justice Wollman, joined by Justices Morgan and Henderson, with Justices Fosheim and Dunn concurring in result). State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D. 1980) (a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Fosheim, joined by then Chief Justice Wollman and Justices Dunn, Morgan and Henderson). State v. DuBois, 286 N.W.2d 801 (S.D. 1979) (a unanimous opinion authored by Circuit Judge Dobberpuhl, sitting for Henderson, J., disqualified, joined by then Chief Justice Wollman, and Justices Dunn, Morgan and Fosheim). State v. Lyons, 269 N.W.2d 124 (S.D. 1978) (a unanimous opinion written by Circuit Judge Jones, sitting for disqualified Justice Zastrow, joined by then Chief Justice Wollman, and Justices Dunn, Porter and Morgan). A finding by the trial court, that a confession or incriminating statement was beyond a reasonable doubt voluntarily made, is binding upon this Court, unless we conclude from our review of the record that the finding is clearly erroneous. State v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 37 (S.D.1984), written for this Court by Justice Morgan. The facts of this case, set out at length above, overwhelmingly indicate that Debra participated in the April 7 interviews of her own accord and cooperated fully. She and her husband, accompanied by his parents and the family pastor, came to the police station on their own volition. She was orally advised that the initial polygraph test was strictly voluntary, and that they were under no obligation to talk to the police. This oral warning was given twice, separately, by Agents Lindberg and DeVaney. See, State v. DuBois, 286 N.W.2d 801 (S.D.1979). Debra also signed a polygraph consent form before the test was administered, immediately after DeVaney advised her that she did not have to take the test and explained the process to her. See, State v. Adkins, 88 S.D. 571, 225 N.W.2d 598 (1975). The polygraph test was not used as a psychological threat, or figurative rubber hose, in the manner proscribed in State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269, 272 (S.D.1983). Indeed, this Court, in Caffrey, cited DuBois and Adkins as instances where past-polygraph statements were voluntary. On the facts of this case, the polygraph test did not render Debra's statements involuntary. Important, also, to our consideration of the totality of circumstances presented here, are Debra's repeated demonstrations of a willingness to participate in the subsequent interviews. The suppression hearing testimony of all three agents who interviewed her reveal cooperation. She specifically suggested, to DeVaney, that she be interviewed by a psychologist or be hypnotized in order to reach the truth. Similarly, during Giegling's interview, she offered to undergo hypnosis, psychological examination, or take a truth serum to jog her memory. She asked Giegling to jar her memory. She exhibited manifestations of voluntariness throughout these interviews, weakening any supposition that her will was overborne. Her subjective intent and state of mind is indicated by her oral expressions to the officers that she wanted to find out what happened to her slain child. Even her emotional state at the end of the interviews does not mandate, by itself, a finding of involuntariness, as even collapse into unconsciousness after a confession might only be a release from the terrible burden of concealing a heinous crime. Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 606, 612 n. 13 (3rd Cir.1986), cert. denied, sub nom, Miller v. Neubert, 479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 585, 93 L.Ed.2d 587. Mere emotionalism does not necessarily invalidate a confession. Miller, id, at 613. Further, the April 7 interviews were part of a chain of instances of Debra's cooperation with the police. She signed a consent form allowing police to search her home on April 5. She voluntarily went to the Correction Center on April 5, late in the evening, and submitted to questioning by Lindberg. She voluntarily provided the police with clothing and jewelry, going so far as to telephone Sheriff Beerman, on April 6, to offer her class ring for analysis. She consented to giving hair and blood samples. We cannot, on this record, hold the trial court's determination of voluntariness to be clearly erroneous. State v. Gregg, 405 N.W.2d 49, 52 (S.D.1987). Exhaustive detailed findings were entered below. On other facts, the length of examinations, see, Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163, 107 S.Ct. 515, 520, 93 L.Ed.2d 473, 482 (1986), or her lack of food [1] might support a finding of involuntariness. Here, however, Debra was not deprived of rest, refreshment, or relief. Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1132, 1140 (5th Cir.1988). Her age (31), and education (two-year college degree) are factors weighing in favor of the trial court's findings. She was neither young, uneducated or weak-minded, and thus, capable of some degree of resistance to interrogation, had she chosen to resist. Miller, at 606. The second leg of Debra's suppression argument, grounded on lack of Miranda warnings, fails because the April 7 interviews were not undertaken in a custodial situation. As noted above, Debra went to the police station voluntarily, was not restrained in any manner during her stay there, and was not taken into custody at any point. See, State v. Graves, 83 S.D. 600, 163 N.W.2d 542 (1968). Her own testimony at the suppression hearing indicates that no action by the police gave her any indication that she was not free to go. Morgan, J. in his dissent reflects on this factual issue but one slice of her testimony. She also testified that she had no restraint upon her. The trial judge was in a better position to decide any conflicts in evidence as he was exposed to the conduct, temperament, and demeanor of the witnesses involved. State v. Brim, 298 N.W.2d 73, 78 (S.D.1980). It is for the trial court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 871 (S.D. 1984). As the United States Supreme Court observed in California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275, 1279 (1983): Although the circumstances of each case must certainly influence a determination of whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of receiving Miranda protection, the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. (emphasis added). Beheler built on a foundation contained in Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), wherein the Supreme Court held that custody or deprivation of freedom to leave was the proper test for determining whether Miranda warnings need be given, not mere focus on a suspect. See also, State v. Perkins, 444 N.W.2d 34 (S.D.1989); State v. Bruske, 288 N.W.2d 319 (S.D.1980). In State v. McQuillen, 345 N.W.2d 867, 870 (S.D.1984), we stated: This Court has set forth a number of factors to be examined in determining whether an interrogation is custodial or noncustodial: probable cause to arrest, subjective intent of the defendant, focus of the investigation, nature of the interrogator, nature of the suspect, time and place of the interrogation, nature of the interrogation, and purpose of the investigation. (citations omitted). Here, Debra's subjective intent was clearly to cooperate fully. [2] She, a mature, educated adult, was not under any restraint, at any time. Unattended, she left the interrogation room at one point, at which time she testified that nothing prevented her leaving. Jenner came and left of her own accord. This totally reinforces that she was not in custody. All these facts lead us to affirm the trial court. This is consistent with Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 496-7, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719 (1977): Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warning to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody. It was that sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited. (emphasis supplied). In short, Debra was neither in custody nor deprived of her freedom of movement. Our recent decision in McDowell v. Solem, 447 N.W.2d 646 (S.D.1989), page 649 thereof, as regards no Miranda warnings on a taped interview of McDowell, is very akin to the case at hand. We expressed therein: Absent a custodial situation, Miranda warnings are not required prior to commencing an interrogation. We cited not only the Miranda decision but also State v. Hall, 353 N.W.2d 37, 40 (S.D.1984). We noted that McDowell willingly agreed to partake in interviews with the police. We noted that Debra Jenner likewise willingly agreed to participate in interviews with investigative agents here. In McDowell, we mentioned that McDowell, in the interviews, would express his opinion and ideas regarding the scheme of execution for the murder of his wife. Here, also, Debra Jenner had a theory as to the possible murder of her child. In McDowell, we mentioned that there were no restrictions on his travel; here, Debra Jenner had opportunity to come and go. In McDowell, we held that the taped interviews could be played to the jury ... as the law enforcement officers were not required to give McDowell his Miranda warnings prior to these interviews. Therefore, our decision here is consistent with the McDowell decision. McDowell was a unanimous decision of this Court including the same composed members of this present Jenner decision. We note appellant's attack on the conduct of the law enforcement officials involved in the questions to appellant. We express that police coercion, in and of itself, does not invalidate a confession. Further inquiry is necessary, namely, when considering coercion, is the confession still voluntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). While the state of the accused's mind, and the failure of the police to advise the accused of [her] rights, were certainly factors to be evaluated in accessing the voluntariness an accused's responses, they were not in and of themselves determinative. State v. Hartley, 326 N.W.2d 226, 230 (S.D. 1982), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Nor does Jenner's emotional condition, on these facts, become determinative, for mere emotionalism and confusion do not necessarily invalidate confessions. Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 613 (3rd Cir.1986). Here, a distressed woman came to a law enforcement facility and expressed, inter alia, that she wanted agent Giegling to jar her memory. At 5:00 p.m. on the day in question, she pledged her cooperation. Later, when the officers obtained the truth, she blurted to her husband I did it. Having found out that she did it, she now cries out that the officers are guilty of police coercion. If this Court accepts that there was police coercion (to get her to confess), we must still determine if, under the totality of the circumstances, these tactics were sufficient to overbear appellant's free and rational will to thus render her admissions involuntary. We then must examine her subjective state of mind. Appellant's statements were voluntary, we must conclude, because of the totality of acts and circumstances we have extensively set forth in this opinion, including but not limited to, that she was actually begging the officers to assist her in recalling what happened or who had killed her daughter. In Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 102, 96 S.Ct. 321, 326, 46 L.Ed.2d 313, 320 (1975) we read that suspects should be given an opportunity to make informed and intelligent assessments of their interests; here, Debra was trying to find out who killed her daughter. Apparently, when she found out that she was the one who had killed her daughter she is claiming that she was not properly Mirandized. Justice Byron White warned against a paternalistic interpretation of the Miranda safeguards so as not to imprison a man in his privileges. 423 U.S. at 109, 96 S.Ct. at 329, 46 L.Ed.2d at 324. Debra had a right to look into who killed her daughter and to make an informed and intelligent assessment of that right. It is necessary to examine the appellant's subjective state of mind to ascertain whether the coercion was sufficient to overbear the will of the accused. McCall v. Dutton, 863 F.2d 454 (6th Cir.1988); see also, United States v. Rohrbach, 813 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1987). Further, a defendant must establish that her/his will was overborne because of the coercive police activity in question. If the police misconduct was not the motivating factor behind the defendant's confession, the confession is voluntary and may not be suppressed. McCall, supra; Hawkins v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir.1988). The trial court, which carefully considered the suppression issue, as reflected in its voluminous findings, is affirmed on this issue. Debra's statements were voluntary, and Miranda warnings were not, on these unique facts, required. Lastly, we note Justice Sabers' forceful criticism of the majority writer's position in this case, comparing same to a dissent in State v. Meek, 444 N.W.2d 48 (S.D.1989). Meek and this case are totally dissimilar in fact. Meek is therefore, inapposite. In Meek, we stated: Officer Hofeldt stopped Meek's vehicle. Meek involved field sobriety tests and whether they are protected by the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Meek was a DUI case, whereas this case involves murder. In Meek, it was totally undisputed that Meek claimed his privilege against self-incrimination. He repeatedly did plead the Fifth Amendmentin those express words. Here, Debra Jenner never made such a claim. Furthermore, entered findings by the trial court absolutely establish, which is also undisputed, that the Jenners voluntarily traveled to the police station on April 5, 1987; the Jenners also drove to the sheriff's office on April 7, 1987. In Meek, we have a stopping of a vehicle on a highway which is known in law as an investigative stop. Jenners were never stopped; they drove to the law enforcement facilities to cooperate. An inconsistency, suggested by Justice Sabers, bears academic scrutiny for correctness.