Opinion ID: 2156025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Custodial Statements to the Police

Text: On appeal, defendant, for the first time, argues that his constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination was violated by the trial justice's erroneous admission of both his oral and written custodial statements into evidence. At trial, the trial justice made a sua sponte determination that defendant's statements to the police were voluntarily given without any force, threats or coercion. The defendant himself never raised the suppression issue (either in writing or orally) at any time during the course of the lower court proceedings. Generally, this [C]ourt will not consider questions that are not properly presented in the court below. State v. Burke, 522 A.2d 725, 731 (R.I.1987) (citing State v. Reis, 430 A.2d 749 (R.I. 1981)). However, notwithstanding a defendant's failure to raise an issue at trial, this Court will review questions concerning basic constitutional rights in very limited circumstances. See id. Those circumstances are: First, the error complained of must consist of more than harmless error. Second, the record must be sufficient to permit a determinationof the issue.    Third, counsel's failure to raise the issue at trial must be due to the fact that the issue is based upon a novel rule of law of which counsel could not reasonably have known at the time of trial. Id. In this case, defendant has not met our standard for appellate review. The issue he has raised is not a novel one  that is, whether a confession has been voluntarily made  but one that has been considered in numerous decisions, both federal and state. See, e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (involuntary confessions inadmissible); State v. Pacheco, 481 A.2d 1009, 1022-27 (R.I.1984) (same); State v. Lemon, 478 A.2d 175, 177-78 (R.I.1984) (same); State v. Amado, 424 A.2d 1057, 1060-63 (R.I.1981) (same); State v. Espinosa, 109 R.I. 221, 225-31, 283 A.2d 465, 467-70 (1971) (same). In light of these cases, it is clear not only that trial counsel should have reasonably been aware of the legal basis for the constitutional claim, but also that the issue should have been preserved for appeal. However, even if defendant had challenged the admissibility of his statements as given to the Newport police following his arrest, such a challenge would have been wholly without merit. Before any interrogation, defendant was orally given his Miranda warnings and asked whether he understood them. He was then led unencumbered by handcuffs into an interview room. Upon his entry into the room, Det. Bucci of the Newport police presented defendant with a printed form containing all the Miranda warnings. This printed form was introduced as a full exhibit at the trial. The detective reviewed the entire rights form with defendant and requested that he initial each of the admonitions in acknowledgment of his understanding. The defendant placed his initials as requested. He then further acknowledged his understanding of the rights and admonitions contained on the printedform by signing his name at the bottom of the form. He also initialed a further printed line that stated [t]he police have made no threats or promises to me. Detective Bucci then asked defendant if he would be willing to answer questions concerning the murder of Kristen Jorge for which he had been arrested. The defendant answered in the affirmative, but requested that he be allowed to use the telephone before any interrogation. Detective Bucci immediately led defendant to a telephone just outside the interview room and allowed him to use the telephone as much as he wanted. The defendant made two telephone calls, which together lasted approximately ten minutes. There were other officers in the room while defendant was making his telephone calls, but no officer was closer than six to eight feet from defendant while he was making the calls. After the telephone calls were completed, Det. Bucci and Det. Ring led defendant back to the interview room, where he proceeded to give an oral statement after being asked if he was willing to answer questions. Thereafter, defendant was taken to the crime scene, where he led the police to the murder weapon and the jacket that had been used to conceal the knife. Upon his return from the scene of the crime, he executed a written statement setting forth the details of the murder. This statement was also tape-recorded. The written statement, which was transcribed from the tape, again refers to the Miranda admonitions that earlier had been given to defendant, and reaffirms his understanding of the rights set forth on the printed form. Each of the fifteen pages of the written statement was signed by defendant and witnessed by Det. Bucci and Det. Ring, as well as a third witness, Robert Silvers. At no time during the trial did defendant raise any question concerning mental illness or allege or even argue through counsel that he was impaired in any way during his interrogation. Detective Bucci, the only witness to support the admissibility of the confession, testified that defendant appearedattentive, cooperative, [and] calm throughout the time that he was being admonished of his Miranda rights and when he was asked whether he was willing to answer questions concerning the crime with which he had been charged. On appeal, defendant raises a question concerning the paper suit given to him after his clothing had been removed for examination. This was a durable zippered jumpsuit, according to Det. Bucci, and was not an inappropriate temporary garment under the circumstances. No issue was raised at trial concerning the presence of the police in the room where defendant made his telephone calls. There is no indication on the record that he requested privacy during these calls. Although defendant never moved to suppress his confessions, the trial justice, out of an abundance of caution, made a mid-trial inquiry into the circumstances and satisfied himself that the Newport police had met every requirement set forth by Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny, and had respected all prophylactic rules set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States and by our own cases. Even if defendant's mental or emotional condition had been raised, the complete absence of police coercion, as well as the impeccable conduct of the Newport officers, would have precluded any finding of inadmissibility. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). Accordingly, defendant's oral, written, and taped custodial statements were properly admitted into evidence.