Court Opinion

ID: 9725886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:17:59.018597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:21.130516
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the conclusion of the majority that it was with*376in the discretion of the district court to consider Farnsworth’s claim that his confession was involuntary in the context of the motion to withdraw his plea of guilty under Minn. R.Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 2. But I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the district court erred in determining that Farnsworth’s confession was involuntary. I would hold that the decision of the district court, that “[plortions of [Farnsworth’s] confession were obtained through coercion,” was not clearly erroneous.
First, I note that the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which both Officer Schmitz and Farnsworth testified and were cross-examined. Although we are likely in as good a position as the district court to review the transcript of the audio recording and the tape of the video recording of the interrogation of Farnsworth, I would defer to the district court’s greater ability to assess the totality of the circumstances, which includes events that occurred before the interrogation began and that were only described by the testimony given at the evidentiary hearing.
I further note that the circumstances under which the interrogation was arranged were extremely coercive. On Friday, November 12, 2004, Schmitz placed a 72-hour hold on all three of the children in Farnsworth’s custody — the victim for whom Farnsworth was a step-father and the two children for whom Farnsworth was the father. The papers reflecting that hold or the actions taken by the county social services were not served on Farns-worth, but Schmitz (not the county social worker) left a telephone message for Farnsworth notifying him that his children would not be returning home for the weekend. The message requested that Farns-worth call Schmitz. It did not say why the children were not returning home or why Schmitz wanted to talk to Farnsworth. According to Farnsworth’s testimony, the message referred generally to safety issues in the home concerning all three children. Farnsworth testified that he attempted to return the call, but was told that Schmitz was not in and would not be in until Monday, November 15.
On November 15, Farnsworth spoke with Schmitz by telephone. Farnsworth testified that he asked exactly what this was about, but Schmitz declined to say anything except that “it was the safety of [the] home.” Farnsworth testified that Schmitz told him that the only way he could help him get his children back is if Farnsworth came in for an interview.
This background is important to the question of whether Farnsworth “came to the police station voluntarily,” as determined by the majority. I would conclude that Farnsworth did not come voluntarily because his children had been taken from him, the notice of this fact was given to him by police, not by county social services, and the notice made it clear that Farnsworth would have to go to the police station for an interview if he wanted to get his children back. Given the general acknowledgment of Farnsworth’s close relationship with the children, whose custody he had fought for in court proceedings, it is hard to imagine what more coercive threat could have been made to get Farns-worth to come in for the interview.
Further, I am deeply concerned with the absence of any Miranda warning at the outset of the interview. Prior to the interview, Schmitz had fully interviewed the victim and clearly had probable cause to arrest Farnsworth, based on the same facts that supported his issuance of a 72-hour hold on the children. Given the coercive circumstances surrounding the arrangement for the interview, I would conclude that the interview had sufficient *377earmarks of a custodial interrogation to require that a Miranda warning be given.
It is true that Schmitz attempted to create the appearance of a noncustodial interview — he went out of his way to say that Farnsworth was not under arrest and was free to leave — but this was only a fa§ade. Farnsworth had already been told that the only way he could get his children back was to sit for the interview. A reasonable person in Farnsworth’s situation would understand that he was only free to leave if he was willing to lose custody of his children.
Schmitz had made himself the sole doorway that Farnsworth had to go through to get his children back. And Schmitz knew, because of the leverage he had established through the removal of the children, that he did not need to formally arrest Farns-worth in order to keep him under police control. Even then, Schmitz, with his badge and gun visible, escorted Farns-worth to his office and closed the door. And on the one occasion when Farnsworth asked to go outside to smoke, Schmitz told him to leave his coat in the office, accompanied him outside, and did not leave his side.
Surely, Farnsworth did not believe that he was free to go after Schmitz brought up the touching allegation. The district court credited Farnsworth’s testimony on this subject, finding that “[ajfter the officer brought up the touching allegation, the [defendant felt that he could not just get up and walk out of the station.”
I would conclude that the interrogation was custodial and that the words “you are not under arrest” and “you can get up and walk out any time you want” were nothing more than a subterfuge to avoid giving a Miranda warning. In those cases where we have concluded that the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that a confession was voluntary, we have relied significantly on the fact that the defendant was given a Miranda warning. See State v. Thaggard, 527 N.W.2d 804, 811-12 (Minn.1995) (“The trial court found that although defendant may have believed he might receive treatment, he understood the Miranda warning that any statement he made would be used against him and he was not told, nor was it implied, that he would not be prosecuted for the rape if he gave a statement.”). See, e.g., State v. Slowinski, 450 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn.1990) (noting that the defendant “was read the Miranda warning at the outset and indicated that he understood his rights.”).
These circumstances call the voluntariness of Farnsworth’s confession into question before even getting to the fact found to be most crucial by the district court— the representation by Schmitz that he was not looking to put Farnsworth away but was “trying to get [Farnsworth] the best help I can so you can have your kids still.” This statement was false. Schmitz was trying to get admissions that he knew would support a conviction that would expose Farnsworth to a substantial prison sentence. Schmitz also knew that this conviction would mean that Farnsworth would definitely lose custody of his children. I agree with the district court that this representation was a promise that was so alluring that it could cause an innocent person in Farnsworth’s position to confess. Farnsworth’s statement “What do I gotta do?” shows the confusion and frustration he was experiencing. And Farnsworth’s response that “she says I did it, I did it,” shows that he was trying to say what Schmitz wanted him to say in order to get what Schmitz promised.
Based on these facts, I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that “Farns-worth was not threatened with the loss of custody unless he confessed.” Although that threat was not made in those precise *378terms, the implication of the first telephone message on Friday, the telephone conversation on Monday, and the representations made by Schmitz during the interrogation were clear: If you want your children back, you had better confess. Schmitz totally rejected Farnsworth’s earlier denials and made clear what he wanted to hear from Farnsworth. I would defer to the district court’s finding that “[t]he [defendant testified that he took Officer Schmitz’s comments to mean that if the [defendant confessed, he would get to go home with his kids, get an assessment done and get treatment.”
Thus, the facts of this case are closely parallel to those in State v. Biron, which held that the promise to bring the case in juvenile court if the defendant cooperated was “calculated to induce a confession.” 266 Minn. 272, 282, 123 N.W.2d 392, 399 (1963).
I would reverse the court of appeals’ decision and reinstate the district court’s order permitting Farnsworth to withdraw his guilty plea.