Opinion ID: 1779869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 10. In determining whether the issuance of a search warrant is proper, an appellate court will review the trial judge's decision to determine whether there was a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Petti v. State, 666 So.2d 754, 757 (Miss.1995) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). The reviewing court will overturn the trial court if there is an absence of substantial credible evidence to support the issuance of the search warrant. Magee v. State, 542 So.2d 228, 231 (Miss.1989). ¶ 11. Culp asserts that the search warrant for a blood sample violated his rights in three ways: (1) it was based on an illegal arrest made in Culp's home without an arrest warrant or exigent circumstances; (2) by surrendering his clothes, he was required to make a statement in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and (3) the search warrant was based on evidence which did not amount to probable cause. Our review of the record reveals otherwise.
¶ 12. Culp relies on Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), in support of his illegal arrest argument. His reliance is misplaced, however, because Welsh is clearly distinguishable on its facts. Police officers entered Welsh's home, without a warrant or consent, and found him lying naked in his bed. They placed him under arrest for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. The Supreme Court held that a nighttime entry into Welch's home to arrest him for a civil traffic offense was clearly prohibited by the special protection afforded the individual in his home by the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 754, 104 S.Ct. 2091. ¶ 13. We have found that arrest means the taking into custody of another person by an officer . . . for the purpose of holding him to answer an alleged or suspected crime. Blue v. State, 674 So.2d 1184, 1202 (Miss.1996). Someone who voluntarily accompanies the police to another location for questioning has not been arrested. Id. We have also held that the test for determining when a person is in custody is whether a reasonable person would feel that they were going to jail and not just being temporarily detained. Godbold v. State, 731 So.2d 1184, 1187 (Miss.1999). Ultimately this means whether a reasonable person felt they had the freedom to refuse police demands. Id. The United States Supreme Court has held that one does not have to be affirmatively told that they had the right to refuse for their actions to be voluntary. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 234, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2051, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). This Court has held that the voluntariness of an accused's consent is based on the totality of the circumstances including among other things: the location of the encounter, any overt coercion, the display of weapons, experience of the defendant with the criminal justice system, and the defendant's age. Jones v. State ex rel. Miss. Dep't of Pub. Saf'y, 607 So.2d 23, 27 (Miss.1991). ¶ 14. Culp's assertion that he was arrested at his home is not borne out by the record, which clearly indicates that the officers were there to speak to him because he and Lowe were the last people seen with the victims. The officers did not arrest Culp at that time, and in fact, told Culp's mother that they merely wanted to question him. [4] Culp agreed to accompany the officers to the police station. ¶ 15. When the officers asked Culp to go with them to the police station, they were doing so to further a general investigation and not to hold Culp to answer for a specific crime. It was not until later that the evidence against Culp indicated his involvement in the assault of one victim and the assault and rape of the other. At all times Culp remained free to refuse to go with the officers. Although they did not tell Culp that he had the right to refuse, under Schneckloth they were not obligated to do so. Further, the fact that the two officers were armed does not make Culp's consent involuntary. They did not display their weapons or indicate that they were present at Culp's home for the purpose of arresting him, or that force would be used against him. Officer Harrison merely asked Culp to come to the police station to answer questions regarding his relationship with the victims. In Jones, we clearly illustrated that the presence of armed police does not itself make consent involuntary, but is rather part of the totality of the circumstances to be considered. Jones, 607 So.2d at 27. Also, Culp had experience with police investigations, because he had previously been indicted for another crime.
¶ 16. At the police station, Chief Eskridge escorted Culp into his office, where they talked while waiting for Sheriff March to arrive. While they were talking, Culp asked the Chief, without being prompted, whether he should remove his clothing and surrender it to the police. Eskridge responded that he probably should do so, but did not compel Culp to surrender his clothing. ¶ 17. Eskridge did not know that Sheriff March, while en route from the crime scene to the station, had spoken to someone and suggested that Culp's clothes needed to be examined. [5] After the Sheriff arrived at the police station, he took the clothes which Culp had removed, and placed them into an evidence bag. While doing this, he noticed red spots which appeared to be blood on them. At trial, the Sheriff acknowledged that Culp would not have been free to leave until he had an opportunity to speak with him and that Culp was represented by counsel. The record is silent as to whether Culp did, or did not, ask to leave. ¶ 18. The Fifth Amendment secures the right to have an attorney present if requested by individuals subject to custodial interrogation. Godbold, 731 So.2d at 1187 (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981)). If the right to an attorney is denied or questioning continues without an attorney present after the accused has requested one, then the prosecution is prohibited from using any resulting statements. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. ¶ 19. To be subject to custodial interrogation one must be both in custody and undergoing interrogation. One is in custody if a reasonable person would find their ability to freely leave restricted. Id. Interrogation does not mean only questioning but rather questioning and its functional equivalent. Pierre v. State, 607 So.2d 43, 52 (Miss.1992). The United States Supreme Court has defined functional equivalent to mean words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1690, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). ¶ 20. In order for statements from a custodial interrogation to be admissible under the Fifth Amendment they must be preceded by proper Miranda warnings. Godbold, 731 So.2d at 1188. The use of statements given in response to police questioning will violate the Fifth Amendment if conducted in the absence of an attorney after the accused has specifically invoked the right to have one. Holland v. State, 587 So.2d 848, 856 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 21. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence and not to real or physical evidence. Upshaw v. State, 350 So.2d 1358, 1364 (Miss.1977). In Upshaw, this Court held that clothing is not testimonial evidence and therefore the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will not bar its introduction at trial. Id. Use of Culp's clothing did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because it was not testimonial. Clothing, as we stated in Upshaw, is physical evidence and not a statement. Further, at the time that Chief Eskridge told Culp that he should probably surrender his clothing, Culp was not under custodial interrogation. The exchange between Culp and Eskridge was initiated by Culp and not by the police, and lasted only long enough for Eskridge to reply to Culp's direct inquiry. It did not result in Eskridge asking any questions of Culp or taking any statements from him. ¶ 22. The facts indicate that Culp voluntarily surrendered his clothing to Chief Eskridge without police compulsion. Voluntary consent eliminates the warrant requirement. Morris v. State, 777 So.2d 16, 26 (Miss.2000). When the State relies on consent to justify a seizure, the State must prove that it was voluntarily given and not the product of coercion or duress. Jackson v. State, 418 So.2d 827, 830 (Miss.1982). The Jones Court stated that the trial court must look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if consent was voluntary. Jones, 607 So.2d at 27. ¶ 23. Looking at the circumstances, it is clear that Culp's consent was voluntary. At the time he removed his clothing he was not confronted with police coercion. He did not object, but quietly sat by while the Sheriff placed his clothes in a bag. In the absence of coercion, Culp's voluntary behavior and silence means that he consented to the taking, and thus there was no violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.
¶ 24. If the police require an accused to submit a blood sample, probable cause must exist to prove that the accused committed a crime. McDuff v. State, 763 So.2d 850, 854 (Miss.2000). In order for the police to be granted a search warrant they must demonstrate to the judge evidence of underlying facts and circumstances necessary to provide a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Petti, 666 So.2d at 757. ¶ 25. In the present case the police presented Judge Lewis with the following evidence: 1) an aggravated assault of two victims occurred in Holmes County leaving both in critical condition and unconscious; 2) a large amount of blood was present at the crime scene; 3) a police officer saw defendants Culp and Lowe talking with the victims earlier that evening; 4) Sheriff March had observed spots on Culp's clothes and on Lowe's shoe that appeared to be blood; and 5) the crime scene had an imprint of tennis shoe similar to Lowe's shoe. Such evidence gives rise to a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists. The trial judge did not err in issuing a warrant to have a sample of Culp's blood taken.
¶ 26. When reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admission or suppression of evidence, this Court must assess whether there was substantial credible evidence to support the trial court's findings. Magee, 542 So.2d at 231. The admission of evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only if that discretion is abused. Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1215 (Miss.2000). ¶ 27. Culp claims that the trial court erred in admitting Officer Harrison's hearsay testimony that Doe told him that she left the Amigo Mart in a car with the same two men with whom he had seen her earlier. Culp asserts that even if M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) is applicable, he was constructively denied the ability to cross-examine Doe because to do so would have been inculpatory. ¶ 28. After Doe regained consciousness, Sheriff March showed her two photo lineups which included Culp and Lowe. At that time, she was unable to pick Culp out of the photos or remember his name. Later, Officer Harrison visited her in the hospital to speak with her about the attack and rape. At that time, she was able to identify Culp by name and picture, but admitted that this was because of the intense media coverage about her rape and assault. However, she was able to confirm to Officer Harrison, without saying names, that she drove away from the Amigo Mart with the same two men that he had seen speaking with Scott and her earlier. ¶ 29. The judge ruled that Doe lacked the independent recollection required to make her identification of Culp trustworthy, finding that it was only as a result of the intense media coverage that Doe was able to recall Culp's name and image. As a result, Doe's identification could have been the product of impermissible suggestion and therefore inadmissible. However, the trial court held that Officer Harrison would be permitted to testify regarding the statement given to him, by Doe, that she drove away with the two men that Harrison had earlier seen with her and that they had raped her. The trial court reasoned Harrison had independent personal knowledge of their identity and thus did not require Doe to identify Culp and Lowe. ¶ 30. At trial the State questioned Officer Harrison about the statement given to him by Doe: Q. Okay. And did you ask her [Doe] whether the same people that you saw her with at the Amigo Mart location were the same ones she left with? A. Yes, sir. . . . Q. And without stating what she said to you, did she answer it? A. Yes sir. She answered yes. It was Officer Harrison and not Doe, who identified those two individuals as Culp and Lowe in earlier testimony. Defense counsel objected to the testimony as hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection. ¶ 31. The trial court correctly granted Culp's motion to suppress Doe's identification of him after she saw his name and picture on the internet and television. Thus, the sole determination for this Court is whether the trial court's admission of Doe's statement to Officer Harrison was error. We hold that as an identification, the statement was admissible under M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C). Defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine the hearsay declarant after the statement was admitted into testimony. The fact that counsel chose not to do so was apparently part of trial strategy. Counsel should not be allowed to use a conscious decision at trial to now argue for reversal. ¶ 32. As a statement of identification, Officer Harrison was allowed to testify as to what Doe told him regarding the identity of the two attackers. See Livingston v. State, 519 So.2d 1218, 1221 (Miss.1988). The Mississippi Rules of Evidence exclude these statements from the definition of hearsay: (d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him . . . . M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C). Culp concedes that the statement was an identification, but argues that the declarant was not subject to cross-examination because the style and phrasing of the direct examination constructively denied him the ability to cross-examine Doe. We find this claim to be without merit. ¶ 33. This Court has held that under M.R.E. 611(b) counsel conducting cross-examination is entitled to broad discretion in the subject matter of the questioning. Craft v. State, 656 So.2d 1156, 1162 (Miss.1995). The trial court has discretion to restrict that latitude when the subject matter of questioning has no relevance. Mixon v. State, 794 So.2d 1007, 1013 (Miss.2001). However, lack of relevance will be found only when the information that counsel is attempting to elicit is wholly extraneous and unprovoked by direct examination. Black v. State, 506 So.2d 264, 268 (Miss.1987). One is deprived of the right to cross-examine when the trial court fundamentally and substantially restricts it. Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1292 (Miss.1984). This Court has interpreted this to mean that the party is deprived of the opportunity without fault on their part. Myers v. State, 296 So.2d 695, 701 (Miss.1974). Counsel's active decision regarding whether or not to file certain motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, and make certain objections falls within the ambit of trial strategy. Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995). The tactical choice of counsel to seek testimony on a particular subject is a personal one and not a restriction by the trial court. Murphy, 453 So.2d at 1293. ¶ 34. In the present case, defense counsel was not deprived of the right to cross-examine Doe nor was that right restricted. Defense counsel understood that if he asked Doe about her identification, her answer would inculpate Culp. Counsel made a conscious decision not to do so. Therefore, it was trial strategy and not a restriction imposed by the trial court, and according to Murphy, there was no abridgement of Culp's rights. Defense counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine Doe following the testimony of Officer Harrison. Doe in her own testimony discussed the identification of the two men who raped her. Cross-examination would have been proper under M.R.E. 611(b). Defense counsel's choice not to do so is a textbook example of trial strategy and does not give rise to a denial of the right to cross-examine. The statement was not hearsay, because it falls within M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) as an out-of-court identification made by the declarant (Doe) after perceiving the individual (Culp), and she was available for cross-examination. Issue two is without merit.
¶ 35. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict testing the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court does not itself have to be convinced of the guilt of the defendant. Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (Miss.2005). Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. ¶ 36. After the close of the State's case, Culp moved for a directed verdict on all remaining counts of the indictment. The motion was denied by the trial court, and Culp now challenges Counts I, II, VIII and IX of the indictment.