Opinion ID: 2077593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Roth, Jr.'s Statement Admissible

Text: Roth, Jr. filed a pretrial motion to suppress a statement that he made while in the custody of Detective Corrigan. A suppression hearing was held at which Detective Corrigan, Detective Morris and Roth, Jr. testified. Detective Corrigan testified that on the morning of January 4, 1999, he was asked by Sergeant Lawrence to transport Roth, Jr. from Troop 2 to the Gander Hill Prison. Detective Corrigan testified that he was informed that Roth, Jr. had been advised of his Miranda [11] rights and had invoked those rights during questioning by Detective Morris. Detective Corrigan then drove Roth, Jr. to the prison. The prison officials would not accept Roth, Jr., however, unless he first received medical attention because he had a wound on his head. Detective Corrigan drove Roth, Jr. back to Troop 2 and then to the Christiana Hospital. According to Detective Corrigan, he and Roth, Jr. engaged in small talk during the ride, but Detective Corrigan did not ask Roth, Jr. any questions. Detective Corrigan testified that on the way to the hospital, Roth, Jr. asked what charges had been lodged against him. Detective Corrigan told Roth, Jr. that he was charged with robbery and attempted murder. Roth, Jr. asked from what source the police received their information. In reply, Detective Corrigan pulled his patrol car over to the side of the road and either showed or read Roth, Jr. that portion of the warrant affidavit indicating that James Anderson had implicated him in the crimes. Detective Corrigan testified that Roth, Jr. made no reply at that time. At the hospital, however, Roth, Jr. asked to see the warrant affidavit again. According to Detective Corrigan, Roth, Jr. then stated, That's the problem anymore, there's no loyalty. Roth, Jr. testified at the suppression hearing on his own behalf. According to Roth, Jr., Detective Corrigan taunted him with the fact that James Anderson informed on him and then told him that both Anderson and his father were going to turn on him, saying, They have no loyalty for you, they have loyalty for each other. Roth, Jr. testified that he replied, What's loyalty have to do with me and them? He denied making the loyalty statement that Detective Corrigan attributed to him. Roth, Jr. also testified that he had told Detective Corrigan he did not want to talk to him and had invoked his right to counsel before Detective Morris. To rebut Roth, Jr.'s assertion that he had invoked his right to counsel, Detective Morris was called to testify at the suppression hearing as a prosecution witness. Detective Morris testified that he questioned Roth, Jr. at Troop 2 on the morning of January 4, 1999 and informed Roth, Jr. of his Miranda rights. Roth, Jr. then made a statement denying any involvement in the crimes. According to Detective Morris, Roth, Jr. never invoked his right to counsel or to remain silent. The trial judge found the testimony of Detective Corrigan to be more credible than that of Roth, Jr. Therefore, the trial judge denied Roth, Jr.'s motion to suppress the loyalty statement at the hospital that was attributed to him by Detective Corrigan. Roth, Jr.'s secondary argument in the Superior Court and on appeal is that, even if he made the statement, the trial judge erred by not suppressing the statement because it was made in response to interrogation by Detective Corrigan after Roth, Jr. had previously invoked his right to remain silent with Detective Morris. The trial judge assumed, without deciding that Roth, Jr. had invoked his Miranda rights, in light of the conflict in the testimony of Detective Corrigan and Detective Morris on that point. The trial judge then ruled that nothing Detective Corrigan said to Roth, Jr. amounted to interrogation within the meaning of Miranda v. Arizona [12] and its progeny. The trial judge specifically rejected the defense contention that this case was factually similar to Brewer v. Williams, [13] the Christian burial case. Once Roth, Jr. had invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda, the police could not question him unless he initiated the contact with the police and Miranda warnings were re-administered. [14] Assuming that Roth, Jr. invoked his rights at Troop 2, the issue on appeal is whether the trial judge correctly ruled that Detective Corrigan's conduct did not constitute interrogation or its functional equivalent. Since the trial judge found Roth, Jr.'s version of what happened not to be credible, the legal issue must be examined in accordance with Detective Corrigan's version of the facts. [15] According to Detective Corrigan, he engaged Roth, Jr. in small talk on the way to the hospital. It was Roth, Jr., however, who first broached the subject of the crimes by asking about the charges and the source of the police information. When Roth, Jr. first learned that James Anderson was the source of the information, Roth, Jr. said nothing. It was only later, at the hospital, when he asked to see the warrant affidavit again that Roth, Jr. made the loyalty statement attributed to him by Detective Corrigan. The State submits that if Roth, Jr. said nothing when he first learned of his informer's identity, Detective Corrigan had no reason to believe that showing Roth, Jr. the affidavit a second time, upon Roth, Jr.'s request, would provoke any type of response. The State argues that the facts of this case are similar to the facts described by this Court in Johnson v. State. [16] In Johnson, the defendant, upon arrest, indicated to the police that he did not want to make a statement and was never administered Miranda warnings. A police officer then took him to a Justice of the Peace Court for presentment. While waiting, the defendant asked the officer how the police knew to follow his vehicle. When the officer responded with an explanation, the defendant made an incriminating comment. [17] In Johnson, this Court upheld the trial judge's factual determination that the officer's answer to the defendant's question was not designed to provoke a response and, therefore, did not constitute interrogation or its functional equivalent. [18] In this case, the trial judge ruled that Roth, Jr.'s statement to Detective Corrigan at the hospital was not the product of interrogation or its functional equivalent. The trial judge properly applied this Court's holding in Johnson to the facts of Roth, Jr.'s case. The trial judge correctly determined that Detective Corrigan's actions were not an interrogation within contemplation of Miranda and its progeny. The trial judge's decision to admit Roth, Jr.'s statement to Detective Corrigan into evidence is affirmed.