Opinion ID: 1060912
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Appellant's Statements

Text: The appellant contends that his statements to the police were taken in violation of his constitutional rights. He claims that he was subjected to custodial interrogation before being advised of his rights, that he was never informed of his rights, and that he never waived any of his rights. The trial court denied a pre-trial motion to suppress the appellant's statements to the police. The court ruled that the statements were voluntarily given in accordance with the appellant's constitutional rights. Testimony at the suppression hearing revealed that on July 7, 1993, at approximately 2:00 p.m., the appellant and his wife were asked to accompany Investigators Stan Cavness and Jim Porter to the Dyersburg Police Department for questioning. The officers told the appellant and his wife that they were not under arrest. Nevertheless, Porter informed them of their Miranda rights. Other members of the appellant's family were also asked at that time to go to the station and talk with the officers. From 2:00 p.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m., the officers talked with the appellant's family members in order to establish the appellant's whereabouts at the time of the murder. At some point, Ms. Boxley, the appellant's mother-in-law, stated that she did not want to talk to the police and was allowed to leave. The appellant was placed in a conference room. However, the conference room was never locked, and the trial court found that the appellant's freedom of activity was not restricted. Subsequently, the appellant was escorted to an interrogation room where the appellant gave several statements to the police. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., Investigator Cavness obtained the alibi statement from the appellant. Cavness then conferred with the other officers concerning the statements of the family members. They noticed inconsistencies between the appellant's statement and those of his family members. At about 6:00 p.m., Investigators Cavness and McDowell interviewed the appellant for an hour. Cavness had a tape recorder in his pocket, which, contrary to his assumption, did not record the conversation. The officers testified that they again informed the appellant of his rights. During this unrecorded conversation, the officers pointed out holes in the appellant's alibi. The appellant eventually confessed to the murder. The officers advised the appellant that he was under arrest and transferred him to the holding cell. The officers then discovered that the tape recorder had not recorded the appellant's confession. Accordingly, the officers asked the appellant if he would give another statement. The appellant stated that he wanted to see his wife first. The officers complied, and the appellant's wife was brought to the station. At about 9:00 p.m., after the appellant had seen his wife, McDowell obtained a recorded statement from the appellant. The officer again advised the appellant of his rights, and the appellant again confessed to committing the crime. The appellant never asked for an attorney. Sometime during that afternoon, the officers gave the appellant a soft drink. The appellant testified during the suppression hearing. He stated that he was placed in feet shackles during the unrecorded conversation. Additionally, the appellant stated that McDowell was yelling at him, calling him derogatory names, and got to grabbing on [him], poking on [him]. He stated that McDowell threatened to kill him. According to the appellant, McDowell also promised that the appellant would receive psychological treatment and would ultimately be placed in a hospital rather than in prison. As mentioned earlier, Officers Jeff Holt and Jim Porter testified that they sat outside the interrogation room during both the unrecorded and recorded conversations and did not hear any threats or use of force. Moreover, during a later pre-trial hearing, appellant's counsel stated that the appellant had indicated to him that he had lied concerning the officers' use of threats, force, or promises to obtain his statement. The court found that at no point in time were threats, force, or promises used by the police to obtain the appellant's statements. Although the officers indicated to the appellant that they would inform the court about the appellant's psychological problems, they did not guarantee treatment. Additionally, the court found that the appellant was adequately advised of his rights. The appellant was first advised of his rights when the officers asked the appellant and his wife to accompany them to the station. It is unclear whether the appellant was advised of his rights immediately prior to the alibi statement. Nevertheless, the court found that the conversation did not amount to a custodial interrogation. Finally, the court found that Miranda warnings were given to the appellant prior to the unrecorded and recorded statements. Indeed, in the recorded statement, the appellant acknowledged that he had been informed of his rights several times before. It is the duty of the trial court to determine the voluntariness and the admissibility of the appellant's statement. State v. Pursley, 550 S.W.2d 949, 950 (Tenn. 1977). Moreover, the trial court's determination that a confession was given knowingly and voluntarily is binding on the appellate courts unless the appellant can show that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's ruling. State v. O'Guinn, 709 S.W.2d 561, 566 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 244, 93 L.Ed.2d 169 (1986). See also State v. Stephenson, 878 S.W.2d 530, 544 (Tenn. 1994).
The appellant claims that he was in custody during the first, alibi statement. According to the appellant, because there is no clear evidence that he was advised of his rights immediately prior to this statement, this statement should have been suppressed. The appellant further argues that the subsequent statements were tainted by this first involuntary statement and should have been suppressed. See State v. Smith, 834 S.W.2d 915, 918 (Tenn. 1992). In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against compelled self-incrimination requires police officers, before initiating questioning, to advise the putative defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. If these warnings are not given, statements elicited from the individual may not be admitted for certain purposes in a criminal trial. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 322, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1528, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). However, an officer's obligation to administer Miranda warnings only attaches `where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him in custody.' Id. (citing Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). In Miranda , the Court explained that a custodial interrogation refers to questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. Thus, when determining whether or not there was custodial interrogation, the initial inquiry is whether the suspect was in custody. The trial court will be given a wide latitude of discretion in its decision, and that decision will not be overturned by this Court unless it appears there has been an abuse of the trial court's discretion and a violation of the appellant's rights. See State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 570 (Tenn. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 960, 115 S.Ct. 417, 130 L.Ed.2d 333 (1994); State v. Nakdimen, 735 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appellant was not in custody during the initial alibi statement. she initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. Stansbury . [19] Specifically, the inquiry is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood his position, i.e., would he have felt that he was not free to leave and, thus, in custody. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1979, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988); State v. Mosier, 888 S.W.2d 781, 784 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Furlough, 797 S.W.2d 631, 639 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Again, the appellant and his wife were asked to come to the station and were told that they were not under arrest. [20] Although the appellant was placed in a conference room for nearly two hours while the officers interviewed his relatives, he was neither locked in the room nor told that he could not leave. Moreover, the record indicates that, during those two hours, the appellant was not entirely isolated. His wife was in the conference room for a portion of the two hours. The officers periodically checked on the appellant and even offered him a soft drink. The appellant never asked if he could leave, and the officers never told him that he could not. The record further reflects that Ms. Boxley, the appellant's mother-in-law, decided she did not want to talk to the police, and the officers allowed her to go. Accordingly, the circumstances do not demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. The appellant also contends that the two subsequent statements, the unrecorded statement taken around 6:00 p.m. and the recorded statement taken around 9:00 p.m., were tainted by the involuntary alibi statement. Since we have concluded that the alibi statement did not stem from custodial interrogation, this contention is without merit.