Opinion ID: 1971058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grant's Motion to Suppress

Text: [¶ 8] This appeal is generated by the denial of Grant's motion to suppress. [1] Grant does not challenge any aspect of the trial itself. In his motion, Grant argued that he had repeatedly invoked his Miranda rights while in the hospital on December 1 and that his statements on December 2 were the product of an illegal interrogation. The court ( Studstrup, J. ) held an evidentiary hearing on Grant's motion to suppress and entered an order denying the motion. Three witnesses testified, each a law enforcement official. Except as indicated, the court found the following facts. These findings were supported by the parties' stipulations, the witnesses' testimony, and other evidence from the suppression hearing.
[¶ 9] Detectives first attempted to interview Grant at 4:26 A.M., just after his surgery was completed when he was placed in intensive care. Grant, who was awake but sedated, was read his Miranda rights, but his interview was terminated because he was not completely coherent. Grant made a mumbling sound when the detectives asked him if he would like to talk to them later. At 9:51 A.M., a detective again attempted to interview Grant and read him his Miranda rights. Grant, who was still in a foggy state of mind, indicated that he did not want to talk and that his throat was sore. At 11:45 A.M., a detective returned to the hospital room, read Grant his Miranda rights, and attempted to interview Grant again. Grant indicated that he could not converse because his throat was sore and that he could not write because his hands were sore. Grant did not respond when the detective asked him if he should return later.
[¶ 10] When the detective returned to Grant's room at 1:42 P.M., Grant stated that he did not want to answer questions. The transcript of the interrogation shows that the following exchange occurred after Grant was read his Miranda rights: Detective: Okay. Now, having all those rights which I just explained to you in mind, do you wish to answer questions at this time? Grant: No. Detective: What's that? Grant: No. Detective: No? Grant: (inaudible) answer any questions. Detective: What's that? Grant: I don't want to answer any questions. Detective: You don't want to answer any questions? Grant: No. The detective immediately ceased questioning Grant and, authorized by the search warrant, executed a search of Grant's body, during which the detective took hand and nail swabbings, nail clippings, pubic hair combings, a penile swab, and a blood sample. Grant remained hospitalized. The officer's questioning of Grant at that interview ceased by 1:50 P.M.
[¶ 11] On the following morning, December 2, the detective learned from nurses that Grant had not been given pain medication since the previous afternoon and began another interrogation of Grant, approximately 19 hours after the most recent attempt. Again, the detective read Grant his Miranda rights, and Grant acknowledged them. Grant agreed to speak with the detective. During the interrogation, Grant made numerous incriminating statements regarding his relationship with the victim and the events of November 30. The interrogation was terminated at 9:47 A.M., when Grant stated, I mean I know I've already told you enough to hang me . . . but I think I'd really like to have a lawyer present. Grant was released from the hospital later that day and formally arrested.
[¶ 12] There was additional testimony at the suppression hearing, presented by the State and uncontested by Grant, that was relevant to the court's custody determination, but was not explicitly addressed in the court's findings. Although the motion court found that a police officer accompanied Grant to the hospital, the court considered it significant that this officer was not in uniform. The officer testified at the suppression hearing, however, that he had been wearing a gun-belt at the time and he conceded that he had asked Grant at least one question in the ambulance for law enforcement purposes. This officer also testified that another officer met them at the hospital and accompanied Grant into the hospital while Grant was still wearing handcuffs. [¶ 13] The transcripts of Grant's interviews show, but the court did not find, that during Grant's first two interviews, the detectives told him that they were looking for the victim, that they knew that Grant had recently been at her home, and that they were investigating the victim's case. These transcripts also show that the detectives made Grant aware that they were receiving updates on his medical condition from the hospital staff. [2] [¶ 14] In addition, the testimony of the detectives at the suppression hearing indicated that throughout Grant's stay at the hospital on December 1, a law enforcement officer was posted in the hallway outside of his room. The court, however, found that there was no indication that [Grant] would have had any knowledge of this law enforcement presence. [¶ 15] The only evidence on that issue came from a detective who testified that guards would sit in a chair in the hallway outside Grant's room and could see his bed, but not always his head, unless he sat up or moved in his bed. This detective testified that he had watched over Grant's room a few times on the day of December 1 and also after the execution of the search warrant on December 1 until midnight on December 2. The detective testified that while he was on watch, Grant rolled over several times, positioned himself so he could look out into the hallway, and then lay back down. The detective could not say, however, during which specific shifts this occurred. The detective who testified on this issue was the same detective who questioned Grant during the 9:51 A.M., 11:45 A.M., 1:42 P.M., and December 2 interrogations. [3]