921 N.W.2d 915
S.D.2019Background
- Defendant Jason Lewandowski entered Jeremy Hendrickson’s home and shot him; Jeremy later died from his injuries. Lewandowski admitted the shooting and made post-incident statements to family and law enforcement.
- Lewandowski was arrested after a high-speed chase, treated for Taser and alcohol-related effects (BAC .164), and interrogated by DCI Agent Stanley Lunzman at a hospital and later at the county jail.
- At the hospital Lunzman made preliminary comments before Miranda warnings; after the room cleared Lunzman read Miranda warnings and Lewandowski acknowledged understanding and answered questions. Miranda warnings were repeated at the jail.
- Lewandowski made a remark at the jail about what attorney would be appointed; he did not clearly request counsel. He moved to suppress his statements as obtained in violation of Miranda and to compel specific performance of a claimed plea agreement to manslaughter.
- The circuit court denied suppression and denied specific performance; a jury convicted Lewandowski of first-degree felony murder, felony while armed, and first-degree burglary; sentences included life for felony murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements made during custodial interrogation should be suppressed for Miranda violation or ineffective waiver | State: Miranda warnings were given, understood, and waived; no clear invocation of counsel; questioning noncoercive | Lewandowski: Pre-Miranda statements and post-warning answers were involuntary given intoxication; he invoked right to counsel at jail | Court: Denied suppression. Pre-Miranda remarks were spontaneous; Miranda warnings given and waiver implied by uncoerced answers; comment about appointed counsel was ambiguous, not a clear invocation. |
| Whether court should compel specific performance of an alleged plea agreement | State: No meeting of minds; essential terms unresolved; any plea subject to victim/family approval | Lewandowski: Parties reached agreement by phone to allow plea to first-degree manslaughter and related counts; State later rescinded | Court: Denied specific performance. No enforceable plea contract shown; no evidence of detrimental reliance and essential terms disputed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (an uncoerced statement after Miranda warnings can constitute an implied waiver)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (request for counsel must be unambiguous to invoke right to counsel)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (limits on reinitiation of questioning and effect of prior waiver)
- State v. Tuttle, 650 N.W.2d 20 (Miranda waiver standards and burden of proof)
- State v. Blackburn, 766 N.W.2d 177 (officer obligations when waiver given and ambiguous references to counsel)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutor promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)