State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West
A16-614
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 30, 2017Background
- Police conducted a controlled buy in May 2011; video/audio showed West handing a green substance that appeared to be marijuana to an informant. 54.2 grams were recovered from the informant.
- On June 1, 2011 police executed a search warrant at West’s property, confronted him with guns drawn, handcuffed him, and questioned him without Miranda warnings; West made, retracted, and then refused further statements and asked for a lawyer; over 5,000 grams of marijuana were seized on the property.
- West, after conviction on stipulated facts for controlled-substance offenses and later testimony at a June 6, 2012 sentencing trial, was charged with perjury based on his sentencing-trial testimony.
- While incarcerated, West made unsolicited inculpatory statements to an investigator on June 13 and June 30, 2011; the investigator warned West he was represented and declined to question him; the June 30 meeting was surreptitiously recorded.
- The district court admitted West’s June 1, June 13, and June 30 statements in the perjury trial (though the June 1 statement had been suppressed in the remanded controlled-substance case); West lost a motion to disqualify the presiding judge and was convicted of perjury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (West) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of June 1 statement (Miranda) | Statement admissible in perjury prosecution despite Miranda violation because perjury exception and impeachment use allow it | June 1 statement was taken during custodial interrogation without Miranda; should be suppressed for all purposes | Admitted: exclusionary rule does not bar use in subsequent perjury prosecution; properly used to impeach and as substantive perjury evidence |
| Admissibility of June 13 & 30 statements (Miranda/interrogation) | Statements were volunteered; no interrogation so Miranda not required | Statements were custodial and required Miranda warnings | Admitted: no interrogation; statements were volunteered after investigator declined to question and warned West |
| Voluntariness of June 1, 13, 30 statements (Due Process) | Statements voluntary under totality: brief June 1 questioning did not overbear will; June 13/30 were unprompted | Statements coerced by police show overborne will and should be suppressed | Admitted: court found statements voluntary (June 1 brief, retracted; 13/30 unprompted without coercion) |
| Disqualification of presiding judge | Judge’s prior participation (presiding at sentencing trial where perjury occurred) does not require disqualification | Judge had personal knowledge from prior proceeding and therefore must be disqualified | Denied: prior knowledge came from judicial proceeding; no evidence of bias or favoritism; presumption judge can set aside prior knowledge not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1971) (statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used to impeach)
- James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1990) (limited exceptions to exclusionary rule where truthseeking outweighs deterrence)
- United States v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (interrogation includes police words/actions likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (involuntary confessions inadmissible for any purpose)
- State v. Berge, 288 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. 1979) (perjury exception permits use of statements in perjury prosecutions)
- State v. Tomassoni, 778 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. 2010) (Miranda-improper statements may be used for impeachment)
- State v. Dorsey, 701 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 2005) (narrow rule on judicial disqualification for personal knowledge)