Opinion ID: 2639377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Miranda and appellant's statements to police

Text: Floyd claims that evidence of his first comments made to police after his arrest was admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. [32] He also claims that evidence of his other statements to police should have been suppressed because his waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary and knowing. After Floyd was handcuffed at the crime scene and before being questioned, he told LVMPD officers, I can't believe I shot those people. Noticing that Floyd had on Marine Corps clothing, the arresting officer briefly spoke to him about the Marine Corps and then informed him of his Miranda rights. Floyd acknowledged that he understood his rights and agreed to talk. His statement was tape-recorded. Around 7:00 a.m., Floyd gave another tape-recorded statement at the Clark County Detention Center after again being informed of his Miranda rights. The two statements were basically consistent. Floyd remembered shooting only the first and last victims. He also told police that he had been out with his girlfriend and others the night before. He had been drinking heavily and began playing blackjack. His girlfriend became angry and left, and he lost most of his money. He did not tell the police about the sexual assaults earlier that morning, but he told them that he had left his pistol in a friend's vehicle, a detail which is consistent with what the sexual assault victim said he had told her. In his first statement he denied any recent use of methamphetamine, but in the second he said that he had taken one small line of methamphetamine not long before the shootings. The arresting officer testified that when Floyd gave his first statement he smelled of alcohol, was very excited and rambling, and had to be calmed down. A blood sample taken from Floyd at 8:00 a.m. the morning of the crimes showed that he had a blood alcohol level of 0.09 percent. An LVMPD criminalist estimated that the level would have been about 0.14 percent around the time of the shootings. A test for controlled substances proved negative. Miranda holds that evidence of a suspect's statements made during custodial interrogation is inadmissible at trial unless the police first informed the suspect of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. [33] Interrogation means not only express questioning, but any words or actions that police should know [are] reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect. [34] Though informed of his Miranda rights, unless the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived them, statements made during custodial interrogation are inadmissible. [35] The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing and intelligent. [36] To determine the validity of the waiver, this court examines the facts and circumstances of the case such as the background, conduct and experience of the defendant. [37] Relevant considerations in determining the voluntariness of a confession include the youth of the defendant, his lack of education or low intelligence, the lack of advice of constitutional rights, the length of detention, repeated and prolonged questioning, and physical punishment such as deprivation of food or sleep. [38] The admissibility of a confession is primarily a factual question; this court should not disturb the district court's determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. [39] Before the arresting officer informed Floyd of his Miranda rights, Floyd made several incriminating admissions. He argues that evidence of these admissions should have been suppressed. Although Floyd was in custody at the time in question, he was not subjected to interrogation: the record shows that the officer did not do or say anything reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statements from Floyd in the brief time before the Miranda warnings were given. Therefore, Floyd's initial comments were admissible. The record also supports the determination that Floyd waived his rights and made his admissions voluntarily and intelligently. At the time he spoke to police, Floyd was in his early 20s and had served four years in the Marine Corps. The record shows that Floyd had an average score on an intelligence test. He made most of his admissions after being advised of his Miranda rights. He began making the admissions immediately after his arrest; no lengthy detention or repeated or prolonged questioning occurred. He was not in physical discomfort, nor did police deprive him of food or sleep. He was somewhat intoxicated, but intoxication renders a confession inadmissible only if the defendant was so intoxicated that he could not understand the meaning of his comments. [40] Although Floyd was obviously agitated and even somewhat bewildered by what he had done, the record shows that he understood what he was saying. His statements remained consistent and were accurate, as is borne out by the other evidence of the crimes. We conclude that Floyd acted voluntarily and intelligently and that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of his statements.