State v. Kasey A. Smith
162 Idaho 878
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Kasey A. Smith was investigated for sexual touching of a minor; he signed a written waiver and underwent a CVSA (computer voice stress analysis) and subsequently confessed during further questioning.
- Smith moved to suppress his confession, arguing it was involuntary; the district court denied the motion, finding the waiver valid and no coercion.
- Smith pleaded guilty to injury to children, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; plea agreement required completion of a "Psycho-sexual evaluation with a full disclosure polygraph (PSE)."
- After the polygraph, the examiner reported deceptive responses; Smith refused to participate in the post-test interview portion.
- The State asserted Smith failed to complete the PSE and therefore was relieved of its promise; at sentencing the State recommended a harsher sentence, and the court imposed ten years (three-year minimum).
- Smith appealed, arguing (1) his confession was involuntary and (2) the State breached the plea agreement by recommending a sentence inconsistent with the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith's confession was voluntary / whether Miranda waiver was valid | Waiver was signed, warnings given, Smith never invoked rights; confession voluntary under totality of circumstances | Waiver was not adequately explained (possibly only written), Smith lacked capacity to understand; officer coercion and deceptive tactics rendered confession involuntary | Waiver found knowing, intelligent, voluntary; confession not coerced; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether officer deception about CVSA/polygraph rendered confession involuntary | Officer's statements about CVSA accuracy, sentencing consequences, and that acceptance "helps" did not overbear will; deceptive tactics about evidence are permissible; statements qualified and contextual | Officer misrepresented CVSA accuracy and consequences; promises/assurances of leniency and misstatements of law rendered confession involuntary | Deceptive statements were within acceptable interrogation tactics, qualified by context; not enough to render confession involuntary |
| Whether plea agreement required completion of post-test interview (i.e., "complete PSE with full disclosure polygraph") | "Full disclosure" PSE required cooperation in pre- and post-test interviews; Smith refused post-test interview and therefore did not complete PSE, releasing State from its obligations | Smith completed the polygraph test portion; "full disclosure polygraph" does not unambiguously require post-test interview, so State remained bound | Court construed agreement in context; post-test interview was required for "full disclosure" PSE; Smith breached, so State was freed to recommend any sentence |
| Remedy for alleged breach (and sentencing consequence) | Because Smith failed to complete PSE, State could recommend any sentence; no breach by State | State breached plea by departing from agreed recommendation, entitling Smith to relief | Court held State was not bound due to Smith's failure to complete PSE; no relief granted to Smith |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver standards)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (totality test for voluntariness; overborne will standard)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (significance of Miranda warnings and waiver)
- Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (State burden to prove voluntariness)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutor promises in plea agreements must be honored)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (factors for voluntariness and waiver review)
- State v. Valero, 153 Idaho 910 (officer misrepresentations and voluntariness analysis)
- State v. Troy, 124 Idaho 211 (voluntariness and promises of leniency)