Opinion ID: 1652716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: requests for counsel

Text: Appellant asserts that both of her written statements should have been suppressed, because they were obtained after she asserted her right to counsel. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Baril v. Commonwealth, Ky., 612 S.W.2d 739 (1981). Following a suppression hearing, the trial judge found that Appellant's requests for counsel were not sufficiently clear and unambiguous so that a reasonable officer under the same circumstances would have known that she was requesting the presence and advice of counsel. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). The suppression hearing consisted of the testimonies of Appellant, her mother, Dora Lea Sassman, and Detective Harlow. Their testimonies were less than consistent. 1. Testimony of Appellant. Appellant testified that on three different occasions after her arrest and before she was transported to the Hart County jail, she asked Harlow if she could call attorney Vincent Yustas; and that Harlow replied (1) she could not make a call until she was booked and (2) Yustas had told Harlow that he was already representing Gerald Talbott in the case and could not represent Appellant because of the conflict of interest. Appellant also testified that after being told that Yustas could not represent her, she made two inquiries about a public defender and was told that she could not have a public defender until her first court appearance on Tuesday morning, March 21. She then testified that after being taken to the Hart County jail, but before she was booked, she again asked if she could call Yustas, but if Yustas could not represent her, why could she not have a public defender? She claimed that she was again advised that a public defender could not be appointed until her first court appearance. Finally, Appellant testified that after she was booked, Harlow told her that he would see her in court and that she probably would be appointed an attorney at that time. 2. Testimony of Dora Lea Sassman. Appellant's mother testified that when she arrived at Appellant's residence, Harlow remarked, I suggest you use that money she gave you to get her a good attorney, to which Mrs. Sassman replied, She has a good attorney, Yustas. Appellant then advised that she had been trying to reach Yustas for four or five days and that he had not returned her calls. Harlow advised Appellant that she needed to get another attorney, because Yustas was already representing Gerald. Appellant then stated that she would need an attorney and that if Yustas could not represent her, I need to get somebody who will. When Mrs. Sassman inquired about a state appointed attorney, Harlow advised that a public defender could not be appointed until Appellant's first court appearance. Mrs. Sassman then told Appellant not to say anything to them until you get an attorney. 3. Testimony of Detective Harlow. Harlow testified that Appellant told him that she wanted to talk to Yustas, and that he advised her that Yustas had told him that he could not represent Appellant because he was representing Gerald and could not represent both. Harlow denied telling Appellant that she could not call an attorney. After Appellant was booked, Harlow asked her if she would give him a statement and Appellant replied that she did not want to give a statement until she talked to a lawyer. However, after further conversation, she changed her mind and rendered the statement in which she claimed that Gerald killed Christina and that her only involvement had been to assist in disposing of the body. It was not improper for Harlow to advise Appellant that Yustas had told him that he could not represent both Gerald and Appellant in this case. Yustas's interpretation of his position was clearly correct. Commonwealth v. Holder, Ky., 705 S.W.2d 907 (1986); Maynard v. Commonwealth, Ky., 507 S.W.2d 143 (1974). Appellant's complaint that she was denied the opportunity to call Yustas rings hollow in light of the fact that she had been trying without success to reach him for four or five days and that she made no attempt to call him even after she was booked at the Hart County jail. Nor do we discern any impropriety in Harlow's advice to Appellant that she would not be appointed a public defender until her first court appearance. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). Although a public defender may be appointed at a preliminary stage of the proceedings, West v. Commonwealth, Ky., 887 S.W.2d 338 (1994), such appointment can only be made by a judge or trial commissioner and only upon at least a claim of indigency. KRS 31.110(1). The judges and the trial commissioner were all absent from the county, and Appellant does not assert that she ever told anyone on March 17 that she was indigent. However, regardless of the import of the conversations which took place at Appellant's residence on March 17, once Appellant advised Harlow that she did not want to make a statement until she talked to a lawyer, any further conversation concerning that subject was precluded and the March 17 statement should have been suppressed. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984); Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). But the fact that the March 17 statement was inadmissible does not ipso facto invalidate the March 18 statement. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1298, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); Greenawalt v. Ricketts, 943 F.2d 1020, 1026-27 (9th Cir.1991). That is particularly true where, as here, Appellant made no claim that she was induced to make the March 18 statement because she already had partially incriminated herself in the March 17 statement. Even after an accused expresses his or her desire to speak to an attorney, a statement subsequently obtained is not involuntary if the conversation was renewed at the initiation of the accused. Edwards v. Arizona, supra, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. The word initiation is to be considered in the ordinary dictionary sense of that word. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045, 103 S.Ct. 2830, 2835, 77 L.Ed.2d 405 (1983). There was substantial evidence to support the trial judge's finding that Appellant initiated the March 18 conversation with Harlow, thereby voluntarily relinquishing her right to be free from further interrogation. KRE 104(a); RCr 9.78; Mitchell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 908 S.W.2d 100 (1995); Skinner v. Commonwealth, Ky., 864 S.W.2d 290 (1993). Since Appellant was readvised of her Miranda rights prior to rendering the March 18 statement, and since there is no evidence that the statement was the product of duress or coercion, any delay between her arrest and her first court appearance, see RCr 3.02, did not affect the admissibility of that statement. Savage v. Commonwealth, Ky., 939 S.W.2d 325 (1996). Since Appellant's March 18 statement was clearly admissible, the admission of the March 17 statement was harmless error. RCr 9.24. The fact that an error involves a constitutional right does not preclude harmless error analysis. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The test is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction, Id., 386 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827, quoting Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 230, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963), or, put otherwise, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828. In Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972), the admission of a confession obtained in violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) was held harmless, since it only contained information which was cumulative to that contained in three other admissible confessions. Compare Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), in which the inadmissible first confession had been coerced; both confessions were verbal and were made to two different persons, and the person to whom the second, uncoerced confession was made, was of doubtful credibility; and, unlike here, the accused admitted in the inadmissible statement that he had committed the murder. A majority of the Court in Fulminante recognized that the admission of even a coerced confession could be harmless error under different circumstances; and the Court was unanimous in reaffirming Milton v. Wainwright, supra , that a confession deemed merely involuntary, because obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, would be harmless error absent a showing of prejudice. The only difference between Appellant's March 17 and March 18 statements was that she omitted from her March 17 statement any facts incriminating her in the actual murder of her daughter. There is no reasonable possibility that the admission of the March 17 statement in which Appellant denied killing her daughter might have contributed to her conviction; thus, as in Milton v. Wainwright , the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.