State v. Humphrey, 2010 Ohio 5950

Humphrey was convicted of breaking and entering, possession of criminal tools, and tampering with evidence following a police interview.
Officers investigated a July 13, 2009 alarm and observed Humphrey leave the scene in a vehicle with a passenger; Humphrey admitted suspended license and officers smelled alcohol.
Humphrey was transported to the scene and later to the police station where Miranda warnings were administered and Humphrey gave a sworn statement incriminating himself.
Humphrey challenged the admissibility of his statement, arguing intoxication prevented a valid waiver; the trial court denied the suppression motion.
Humphrey pleaded no contest to the three counts; the trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 12 months (two counts) and 5 years (tampering).
On appeal, Humphrey argues the convictions should have merged as allied offenses of similar import.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Humphrey's Miranda waiver voluntary?	Humphrey contends intoxication rendered waiver involuntary.	Humphrey argues police coercion or inducement tainted waiver.	Waiver voluntary; evidence supports sobriety and non-coercive inducement.
Should the two offenses be merged as allied offenses?	Convictions for breaking and entering and possessing criminal tools should merge.	Talley controls; offenses are not allied offenses of similar import.	No merger; Talley governs; offenses are not allied imports.

State v. Dailey, 53 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1990) (voluntariness factors for Fifth Amendment waiver)
State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (Ohio 1976) (totality of circumstances for voluntariness)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (written waiver as strong proof of voluntariness)
State v. Arrington, 14 Ohio App.3d 111 (Ohio App. 1984) (promises of leniency can be coercive if illusory)
State v. Talley, 18 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 1985) (merger analysis for allied offenses of similar import)
State v. Blankenship, 38 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1988) (two-step merger test)
State v. Ware, 63 Ohio St.2d 84 (Ohio 1980) (merger doctrine codified; cumulative punishment restrictions)
State v. Jones, 78 Ohio St.3d 12 (Ohio 1997) (two-step allied offenses analysis)
State v. Rance, 85 Ohio St.3d 632 (Ohio 1999) (separate animus and cumulative sentencing principles)
State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2008) (alignment of elements not exact but substantially similar)
U.S. v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (mental condition alone not dispositive of voluntariness)
U.S. v. Wrice, 954 F.2d 406 (6th Cir. 1992) (promises of leniency may be coercive if illusory or broken)
U.S. v. Johnson, 351 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2003) (illusory promises coercive? distinction in coercion analysis)