Buster v. Commonwealth
364 S.W.3d 157
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Patricia Buster was charged in two indictments with numerous counts of first-degree sex crimes and related offenses involving alleged abuse of children by Kenny Buster and witnessed by Appellant.
- Appellant is mentally retarded with IQ estimates around 65 and functioning at a childlike level in certain domains.
- At arrest, Appellant initially invoked her right to remain silent; police proceeded with an interview plan involving a social worker (Bell) and an officer (Atwell).
- Bell, a Cabinet for Health and Family Services investigator, interviewed Appellant twice prior to arrest and later spoke with her during custody with police approval.
- Appellant signed a waiver after a private dialogue with Bell and an additional Miranda warning by Atwell, then provided a six-page handwritten statement detailing victims and acts.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress the November 24, 2009 statement; Appellant pled guilty conditionally to reduce exposure, preserving appeal on suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant's Miranda waiver was voluntary after invoking silence. | Buster's invocation of silence was ignored; coercive pressure by Atwell and Bell invalidates waiver. | Commonwealth contends waiver was voluntary despite invocation; Mosley factors support scrupulous conduct. | Waiver not scrupulously honored; confession inadmissible; conviction vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ( Miranda warnings and right to cut off questioning)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (factors for scrupulously honoring right to silence)
- In re Berghuis v. Thompkins, Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (clarified unequivocal assertion to cut off questioning and subsequent interrogation)
- Mills v. Commonwealth, 996 S.W.2d 473 (Ky. 1999) (illustrates scrupulous honor of invocation when second interviewer knew of initial refusal)
- Henson v. Commonwealth, 20 S.W.3d 466 (Ky. 1999) (distinguishes preservation of coercion claims raised below)