Opinion ID: 1756872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Point Seven: Miranda Rights

Text: In the seventh point, Appellant argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting Appellant's interview with the police into evidence because he did not waive his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Appellant surrendered three days after Sgt. McEntee was killed. Appellant was given his Miranda rights when taken into custody and again before he was interviewed. Appellant gave a response to the Miranda rights before the interview was taped, but it was inaudible and a written waiver was not signed. The transcript of the interview shows the conversation, in context, as: DETECTIVE [N]ESKE [14] : Okay. We're going to talk about some things, all right? Before you make any answers, say anything, I want you to listen to what I have to say, all right? I'm going to read you your rights, okay? Just advise you of all that stuff. I'm going to talk to you for a minute before you make any decisions, okay? Can you do that for me? KEVIN JOHNSON: Yeah. DETECTIVE [N]ESKE: All right. I want you to speak loud and clear, okay? I have trouble hearing sometimes, all right? KEVIN JOHNSON: Yeah. DETECTIVE [N]ESKE: You know you have the right to remain silent. You know anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You're entitled to talk to an attorney, have an attorney present. If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand all of that? KEVIN JOHNSON: (inaudible). DETECTIVE [N]ESKE: Okay. We all know why we're here? KEVIN JOHNSON: Yeah. (Emphasis added). At trial, Det. Neske testified that he read Appellant his Miranda rights and that Appellant wanted to speak with police. Det. Neske's testimony was: Q [State]: And we heard testimony earlier that when he was taken into custody he had been advised of his rights. Was he advised of his rights again? A [Det. Neske]: Yes, I was told by Detective Bradley that his rights were read upon him being placed in his custody. And when Detective  or Officer Bales and I entered the interview room, I orally advised him of his rights. Q Did he understand those rights, indicated that he understood them? A Yes, he did. Q Including the right to remain silent? A Yes. Q Did he agree to waive the rights and speak with you? A Yes, he wanted to talk to me. Q Without a lawyer, or did he ask for an attorney or anything along those lines? A Never asked for an attorney. Q Wanted to talk to you about this occurrence? A Yes. (Emphasis added). After Appellant was advised of his rights, the interview commenced and lasted for more than five hours. At three points in the interview, Appellant stated I don't want to talk to you now. You want , I don't want to answer no more questions, and I don't want to answer your questions. After making these statements, Appellant continued to engage in the conversation, either answering the questions directly or stating he did not know. He never asked for an attorney. Appellant did not file a motion to suppress his statements, as shown by the record: MR. MONAHAN [State]: There are no motions to suppress on file. I was anticipating they might file some I had discussions with Ms. Kraft that apparently there will be none that will be filed. That's a matter of trial strategy for her. I just wanted to get that out in the open that that's what's going on. THE COURT: Do you anticipate filing any motions to suppress? MS. KRAFT [Defense]: Not unless something comes up somehow in these jail phone calls that we have received. THE COURT: That's either evidence seized or statements or identification? MS. KRAFT: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. (Emphasis added). Appellant also did not object when the recording of the statement was offered into evidence, as shown by the transcript: Q [Mr. McCulloch, State] Let me show you what we've marked as State's Exhibit 70. Do you recognize this? A [Det. Neske] Yes, that's the DVD that I download from the interview. . . . . MR. McCULLOCH [State]: Judge, at this time, I would offer State's Exhibit 70 into evidence. THE COURT: Any objection? MS. KRAFT [Defense]: No. THE COURT: Exhibit 70 will be admitted.

Miranda rights inform a criminal defendant of his constitutional rights during the interrogation process. State v. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d 165, 173 (Mo. banc 1997). The state must prove a challenged statement complied with the guidelines established in Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, and was voluntary. State v. Groves, 646 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo. banc 1983). A defendant may waive his Miranda rights by orally indicating his willingness to cooperate with the police questioning despite refusing to sign a written waiver. Id. at 85. In Groves, this Court found, on plain error review, the defendant was fully aware of his Miranda rights without a written waiver when a police officer testified the defendant did not object to the interview and freely talked with police. Id. at 83-85. From the record, it is evident that Appellant indicated his willingness to talk with police by orally agreeing to talk and engaging in a five-hour interview, despite not signing a waiver. Miranda rights may be invoked at any time by giving a clear, consistent expression of a desire to remain silent. Simmons, 944 S.W.2d at 173-74. Appellant did not invoke his Miranda rights at any point. Appellant's statements did not convey a clear desire to remain silent and he continued to talk after making each statement. Appellant's constitutional rights were not violated.
Additionally, Appellant's strategic decision not to object to the admission of the statement constituted a waiver. An objection to the admission of evidence must be made to preserve the issue for appeal. Johnson v. State, 189 S.W.3d 640, 646 (Mo.App.2006). Plain error review would apply when no objection is made due to inadvertence or negligence. State v. Mead, 105 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Mo.App. 2003). Plain error review is waived when counsel has affirmatively acted in a manner precluding a finding that the failure to object was a product of inadvertence or negligence. Id. Plain error review does not apply when a party affirmatively states that it has no objection to evidence an opposing party is attempting to introduce or for a trial strategy reason. Id. at 556. Appellant affirmatively stated no objection to the admission of the interview, thereby waiving plain error review of his constitutional rights.
Appellant's argument that his constitutional right to remain silent was violated and that the interview is inadmissible was not objected to or preserved. This Court has discretion to review a point regarding a substantial right not preserved. Rule 30.20. This Court finds no plain error as Appellant failed to show a manifest injustice resulted from the actual interview or admission of the interview into evidence.
The trial court did not plainly err. The point seven is denied.