State Of Iowa Vs. Colby Alan Palmer
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 144
| Iowa | 2010Background
- Palmer, an Iowa inmate, kicked a correctional officer, leading to an interview by authorities; the first interview ended when Palmer invoked no waiver of rights and refused to speak about the assault.
- The day after the kick, Palmer was questioned again in a different room after receiving new Miranda warnings and waivers; he admitted to discussing the assault in the second interview.
- Palmer was charged with interference with an official act and assault on a correctional officer; he moved to suppress the second-interview statements.
- The district court denied suppression; the court applied the Mosley framework for remaining silent and Edwards/Shatzer framework for right to counsel; Palmer appealed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding the second-interview statements were admissible and Palmer’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the marshalling instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| suppression of second-interview statements | Palmer argues Holder violated his right to remain silent by conducting a second interview | State argues Mosley factors show scrupulous honoring of silent invocation | No error; statements admissible under Mosley analysis |
| kn owledge and voluntariness of waiver before second interview | Palmer contends waiver was not knowingly or voluntarily given | State argues waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made | Waiver valid; knowingly and voluntarily made |
| ineffective-assistance claim re marshalling instruction | Counsel failed to object to internally inconsistent instruction | Instruction error harmless due to underlying assault conviction | No prejudice; verdict supported by assault conviction; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ortiz, 766 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2009) (de novo review of suppression; totality of circumstances)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (two-part knowingly and voluntary waiver standard)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (right to remain silent requires scrupulous honor if re-interrogating)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (per se ban on interrogation after request for counsel absent initiation by accused)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (U.S. 2010) (longer breaks (14 days) can permit re-interrogation after custody)
- State v. Washburne, 574 N.W.2d 261 (Iowa 1997) (invocation of right to remain silent analyzed under Iowa/ Mosley framework)
- Newsom v. State, 414 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 1987) (right-to-counsel invocation distinctions discussed)