Opinion ID: 1550932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the motion to suppress the confessions

Text: After hearing the evidence presented by both the state and defendant in respect to defendant's motion to suppress the confessions given to the Providence police, the trial justice determined that the state had proven by clear and convincing evidence (1) that defendant had been adequately and effectively informed of his constitutional rights as mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, and (2) that defendant knowingly and intentionally waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel, retained or appointed. He further found that defendant did so fully aware that anything he said could be used against him in court. The defendant concedes that the police carefully advised him of his constitutional rights and that there was no element of coercion used in securing the four confessions that were introduced in evidence against him. He does, however, challenge his ability to understand the Miranda warnings and argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights. After examining the record and the transcript of testimony given in the suppression hearing, we are of the opinion that Detective Cross and Sergeant Pedchenko were scrupulous in their admonitions and made every reasonable effort when discussing the Miranda rights and explaining the forms presented to defendant to make certain that he understood the document line by line as he read it aloud. Detective Cross also paraphrased statements on the form in everyday language, such as, Do you understand, Ray, that you don't have to talk to me? You don't have to say anything? and Do you understand, Ray, that whatever you tell me I can go to court and tell the court what you told me? and Do you understand that you can have a lawyer here before you talk to me? The defendant stated to the police, as he went over the Miranda form line by line and was further instructed in everyday language, that he understood his rights and agreed to give a statement. He stated unequivocally that he did not want an attorney and did not wish to use the telephone. We have scarcely encountered a more thorough and painstaking effort by police officers to inform a suspect of his constitutional rights to silence and counsel, and the consequences of waiving those rights than that disclosed by the evidence in this case. The defendant does not challenge the quality of the admonitions or the lack of coercion by the police but relies solely upon his purportedly limited intelligence and inability to understand the Miranda warnings. In respect to defendant's ability to understand his rights and effectively waive them, the state presented four expert witnesses, all of whom testified that defendant had the capacity to understand, as well as to read, the specific description of his constitutional rights, particularly in light of the supplemental instructions given to him by the interrogating officers. For example, Dr. Mary Wellman testified that she felt with a reasonable degree of certainty that [defendant] was indeed able to comprehend the Miranda warning. Doctor Spencer DeVault came to the same conclusion, relying upon all the circumstances. Doctor Gerald Champagne testified that defendant was able to read and comprehend the Miranda admonitions. Doctor Joy E. Pitterman stated, I feel that he does understand the content of [the Miranda ] form and does understand the rights he waived. The defendant presented one witness, Dr. Stephen Imber, whose testimony was somewhat equivocal and whose ultimate conclusion was stated as follows: My opinion is that I believe Mr. Lassor would have had a limited understanding of his rights at that point in time. It's not absolutely possible to determine precisely how much he understood at that time. And I don't think anybody can make a definitive statement on that basis, but given his reading, his present reading levels, the results of testing that was conducted years ago, which is pretty consistent with my own findings, given his listening comprehension results, it would appear that his listening understanding would have been less than instructional level. That is, a frustration level, and perhaps some of the more abstract concepts involved might have, or probably would have been beyond comprehension or grasp at that time. The testimony of the four experts presented by the state, considered in conjunction with the testimony presented by the police officers, leads us to believe that the trial justice committed no error in finding that defendant, who had been steadily employed, married, possessed a license to drive, and functioned normally in the community, was capable of understanding the Miranda admonitions and that he knowingly and freely waived his rights to remain silent and to be questioned in the presence of counsel. The fact that Dr. Imber's testimony questioned defendant's ability to understand did not detract significantly from the force of the testimony of the state's experts. The trial justice also took into account that defendant had been found competent to stand trial after examination by a state psychiatrist and passing the required tests for competency. The finding that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights without any atmosphere of coercion is supported not only by clear and convincing evidence but as the trial justice suggested, also by evidence that far exceeded [the state's] burden of proof. The motion to suppress was properly denied.