State v. Pennington
408 S.W.3d 780
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Pennington voluntarily went to the police station after a voicemail; interview was videotaped and later admitted at suppression hearing.
- Detective Aaron administered Miranda warnings after Pennington read and understood a written Miranda form; Pennington signed the form.
- Approximately ten minutes after warnings, the questioning shifted to the sexual misconduct allegations against Pennington.
- Pennington made initial denials, then admitted touching the child and wrote a voluntary written statement.
- The circuit court granted suppression, relying on lack of an express waiver and concluding no proof of knowing, intelligent waiver.
- State appealed the suppression order, arguing Berghuis v. Thompkins allows implied waivers and the court applied an incorrect standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court used the correct waiver standard. | State argues no express waiver required; Berghuis permits implied waiver. | Pennington argues the court properly required knowledge of waiver; implied waiver not proven. | Yes; the court erred by requiring express waiver and should consider implied waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (waivers can be established without express statements; must show understanding of rights)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (two-dimensional waiver inquiry: voluntariness and understanding of rights)
- Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) (police subject matter of interrogation does not affect waiver analysis)
- State v. Sparkling, 363 S.W.3d 46 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (waiver inquiry includes implied understanding; not solely express waiver)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes warnings; not all consequences must be understood to waive)
- State v. Mateo, 335 S.W.3d 529 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (knowing and intelligent waiver shown by understanding rights and ability to read/react to them)