Court Opinion

ID: 9564663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:05:11.244996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:36.453997
License: Public Domain

*556Judge Horton
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of the majority that “the trial court did not err in determining that defendant was not in custody, and the statements he made prior to his arrest were admissible.”
Defendant, eighteen years old at the time, was interrogated for some seven hours at the Robeson County Detention Center as a suspect in the murder and robbery of James Jordan, father of basketball superstar Michael Jordan. Officers told defendant he was not under arrest, and defendant voluntarily accompanied the officers to the Center. Defendant also consented to the search of his bedroom in his mother’s home. Four police officers were present during the interrogation, three of whom were visibly armed. The site of the interview was moved from a large conference room to a smaller 20-by-20-foot room which contained three desks, a number of chairs, a telephone and a wall unit used as a post office. At no time during the interview was defendant represented by counsel, nor was he advised at any time of his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
Defendant gave numerous contradictory statements to the officers, but denied any involvement in the murder of James Jordan. The officers continued to question defendant, telling him that he was not telling the truth, he was “running out of time,” he needed to do the “right thing,” and he needed “to change his path . . . and head the other way.” When defendant expressed concern that he had been “set up” for the murder and would be killed in jail to eliminate him as a witness, the officers told him that, if he were to be killed or hurt in jail, it would be because the victim was James Jordan. One or more officers told defendant that Michael Jordan was “the American Hero,” and that “everybody loves Michael.” After repeatedly telling defendant he was not telling the truth, the officers told defendant they believed that either he or suspect Larry Demery had killed James Jordan. Later in the interview, one of the officers told defendant he believed that defendant had killed James Jordan. During the lengthy interview process, there were several breaks and defendant was allowed to go to the rest room. Defendant was given coffee and asked if he was “doing all right.” After the second break, the officers stopped tape recording the interview.
Although defendant was calm at the beginning of the extended interview, the officers commented later in the interview that defend*557ant was “shaking to death” and that he should “come clean,” tell the truth, and get it off his chest. Defendant was told several times that he was not under arrest, but he was never told he could leave the police station, or that anyone would provide him transportation back to his home. When defendant wanted to call his mother and tell her he would not be coming home because the officers believed he had killed someone, the officers told defendant they only wanted him to tell the truth. Later, defendant called his mother and told her he would be home late. At 4:45 a.m., defendant was told he was not free to leave, and was advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant then said he did not want to talk to the officers anymore and he wanted a lawyer.
The able trial court made numerous findings of fact and concluded that defendant was not “in ‘custody’ when he accompanied Special Agent Meyers and Captain Binder from his residence to the Robeson County Detention Center.” (Emphasis added.) The question before us, however, is whether defendant was in “custody” during his lengthy interrogation at the Detention Center. The trial court concluded that “a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have felt that he was under arrest or otherwise deprived of his freedom under the facts presented.” The trial court also concluded that defendant’s statements were made “freely, voluntarily, and understandingly. ”
In North Carolina, we have adopted an objective test to determine whether a suspect is in custody. “A suspect is in custody when, considering the totality of circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would not feel free to leave. ‘This test is necessarily an objective one to be applied on a case-by-case basis considering all the facts and circumstances.’ ” State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 52, 55, 497 S.E.2d 409, 411 (1998) (quoting State v. Medlin, 333 N.C. 280, 291, 426 S.E.2d 402, 407 (1993)). In Jackson, the evidence showed that
at the request of two deputy sheriffs, the defendant accompanied them to the sheriff’s office. While at the sheriff’s office, the defendant consented to fingerprinting and gave blood and hair samples. He was under constant supervision. The defendant had told officers he was anxious to return to work, and despite answering all questions from them and telling them he had no knowledge of the crime, he was never told that he was free to leave or that he would be given a ride to his home or place of work if he decided to leave.
*558After being in the interrogation room for a period of approximately three hours, during which time he was questioned by the officers in regard to the murder, had hair and blood samples taken, and was fingerprinted, a reasonable man at the least would have wondered whether he was free to leave. When the sheriff asked him what he had done with the rifle he had used to kill the victim, this informed the defendant that the sheriff thought he had committed murder. A reasonable man in the defendant’s position who had been interrogated for approximately three hours and thought the sheriff believed he had committed murder would not have thought he was free to leave. He would have thought the sheriff intended to hold him for prosecution for murder. Thus, we hold that the defendant was in custody when he inquired about an attorney.
Id. at 56, 497 S.E.2d at 411.
In the case before us, no reasonable man in defendant’s position who had been interrogated for approximately seven hours and thought police officers from numerous agencies believed he had murdered, or was at the least an accessory to the murder of the father of one of the world’s great athletes, would believe that he was free to leave. Defendant was in custody during his interrogation, was not advised of his Miranda rights, and his statements should have been excluded from evidence.
The majority attempts to distinguish Jackson from the case sub judice on grounds that the trial court in Jackson did not make findings of fact “as to whether Jackson was in custody.” They argue that in the case at bar the trial court made “extensive findings of fact and concluded defendant was not in custody during the time in question.” They hold that the “trial court’s findings are supported by the record, and we are bound by them.” While I agree that the trial court’s findings of fact in this case are supported by competent evidence, “[t]he determination whether an individual is ‘in custody’ during an interrogation so as to invoke the requirements of Miranda requires an application of fixed rules of law and results in a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact.” State v. Davis, 305 N.C. 400, 414-15, 290 S.E.2d 574, 583 (1982). In the instant case, the lengthy findings of fact made by the trial court simply do not support its conclusion of law that defendant was not in custody, and we are not bound by its conclusion.
*559Second, the majority points out that defendant in the present case never invoked his right to counsel, and that he did not make statements which were inculpatory on the charge of murder. The entire interrogative procedure was designed to lull defendant into failing to assert his rights to counsel, and thus bring the interrogation to an end. For example, defendant was not advised of his right to counsel, was assured that he was not “under arrest,” and statements were made by the officers which implied that, if he were only involved in the murder of Mr. Jordan as an accessory, the punishment might not be as bad as he thought. While defendant never admitted that he murdered the victim, his statements certainly heavily involved him in the murder and robbery. Even assuming arguendo that defendant’s statements did not directly implicate him in the murder, his illegally obtained statements were improperly used to impeach his alibi witnesses. In James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 107 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that although illegally obtained evidence could be used to impeach the defendant’s own testimony in a criminal case, such illegally obtained evidence may not be used to impeach other defense witnesses. The James court explained why it declined to expand the exception to the exclusionary rule.
[M]uch if not most of the time, police officers confront opportunities to obtain evidence illegally after they have already legally obtained (or know that they have other means of legally obtaining) sufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie case. In these situations, a rule requiring exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from only the government’s case in chief would leave officers with little to lose and much to gain by overstepping constitutional limits on evidence gathering. Narrowing the exclusionary rule in this matter, therefore, would significantly undermine the rule’s ability “to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217, 4 L Ed 2d 1669, 80 S Ct 1437 (1960). So long as we are committed to protecting the people from the disregard of their constitutional rights during the course of criminal investigations, inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence must remain the rule, not the exception.
James, 493 U.S. at 319, 107 L. Ed. 2d at 687-88 (footnote omitted).
Finally, the majority attempts to distinguish Jackson by noting that defendant Jackson was searched and had his fingerprints, blood *560and hair samples taken. In the present case, defendant Green consented to a search of the bedroom he occupied in his mother’s home; was interrogated throughout the night by four officers, three of whom were armed; was told about evidence which tied him to a brutal murder; and was accused of having committed that murder. Despite slight factual differences, the facts in the present case are at least as compelling as those in Jackson. Thus, we are bound by the great constitutional principles Jackson reaffirms, and the result it reaches.
The trial court further concluded that “there was no inducement of hope that promised relief from a criminal charge.” Yet the trial court found the following facts:
41. One or more of the officers stated to defendant that an “accessory to a crime is the lowest end to the crime, and the presumptive on accessory charge is about three years.” The Court finds that this statement was made to impress upon defendant that he should be truthful about his role or involvement in the matter being investigated and that, if he had not actually committed the killing but had only participated after the fact, he should be truthful about his involvement. The defendant responded that he knew someone who had gotten “fifty years for Accessory (SIC).” Binder stated that that person might have gotten “fifty for Conspiracy, but not an Accessory.”
* * * ❖
43. Captain Binder told defendant that he wanted to show him that he was not lying to him and showed him a “book” indicating that an accessory after the fact was punishable up to ten (10) years with a presumptive of three (3) years. Captain Binder then stated that a three year sentence today would be about “forty days.” The Court finds that this statement was made in response to defendant’s earlier accusation that the officers were not being truthful with him and in response to defendant’s statement that, if he was an accessory, he believed that he faced a life sentence or fifty (50) years.
Following the statements of the officers about the likely punishment of a person implicated as an accessory after the fact to murder, with the possibility that imprisonment might only amount to “forty days,” defendant gave several versions of his involvement with Larry Demery after the murder of James Jordan. “The ultimate test of *561admissibility of a confession is whether the statement was in fact voluntarily and understandingly made.” State v. Davis, 305 N.C. at 419, 290 S.E.2d at 586. Under the circumstances of this interrogation, the officers’ statements amounted to an impermissible inducement of hope and defendant’s statements should also have been excluded on the grounds that they were not freely or voluntarily made. While the opinion of the majority does not speak directly to the trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s statements were made “freely, voluntarily, and understandingly,” it is obvious that the trial court struggled with its conclusion.
The Court concludes that, while some of the comments or statements made by one or more of the officers, taken in isolation, might be viewed as improper and might otherwise be suggestive of pressure or coercion, in the context of the entire interrogation and under the totality of the circumstances, nothing about the comments or statements of the officers would render any statement or statements of the defendant involuntary.
(Emphasis added.)
Viewing the totality óf circumstances surrounding the interrogation of defendant, the conclusion that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made cannot survive appellate review. Considering those isolated statements which might be viewed as “improper and might otherwise be suggestive of pressure or coercion,” together with the statements of the officers which gave defendant the hope of relatively short imprisonment, show that defendant’s statements were not voluntary.
The United States Supreme Court stated that its purpose in Miranda was “to explore some facets of the problems ... of applying the privilege against self-incrimination to in-custody interrogation, and to give concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 441-42, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 705. The Supreme Court began its discussion in Miranda, as it did in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964), with
the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings. We have undertaken a thorough reexamination of the Escobedo decision and the principles it announced, and we reaffirm it. That case was but an explication *562of basic rights that are enshrined in our Constitution — that “No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” and that “the accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel” — rights which were put in jeopardy in that case through official overbearing. These precious rights were fixed in our Constitution only after centuries of persecution and struggle. And in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, they were secured “for ages to come, and . . . designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 387, 5 L ed 257, 287 (1821).
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 442, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 705.
Because defendant’s statements were not freely and voluntarily made, and because defendant’s statements were improperly admitted into evidence in violation of basic rights “fixed in the Constitution,” the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to assistance of counsel, defendant is entitled to a new trial.