State v. Pickens, 2017 Ohio 1231

Harold Pickens was indicted for gross sexual imposition and rape; he later pleaded no-contest to an amended rape count and was sentenced to an indefinite term (10 years to life) and classified as a Tier III sex offender.
On Jan. 14, 2016, officers executed a search warrant at Pickens’s home, interviewed him at the house and then at the police station (he accompanied officers voluntarily); he was not Mirandized that day.
On Jan. 15, 2016, Pickens was again interviewed at the station, read a Miranda form line-by-line, and signed an acknowledgment; he did not request counsel and made inculpatory statements.
Pickens moved to suppress statements from Jan. 14–15 arguing custodial interrogation without valid Miranda waiver; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing and video review.
The trial court held a competency voir dire for the nine-year-old victim (R.D.) and found her competent to testify; Pickens appealed both the suppression ruling and the competency finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jan. 14, 2016 statements required Miranda warnings (custodial interrogation)	State: interview was non-custodial; no Miranda required	Pickens: stationhouse interview and transport rendered it custodial; statements should be suppressed	Court: Jan. 14 interview was non-custodial; Miranda not required; statements admissible
Whether Jan. 15, 2016 waiver of Miranda rights was valid	State: defendant knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waived rights (form, reading, questioning about comprehension)	Pickens: did not expressly waive; limited education and equivocal responses rendered waiver invalid/coerced	Court: even if custodial, waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; statements admissible
Whether the child-victim (R.D., age 9) was competent to testify under Evid. R. 601(A)	State: voir dire showed ability to perceive, recall, communicate, and understand truthfulness	Pickens: child’s confusion, inconsistent answers, and coaching risk undermined competency	Court: trial judge did not abuse discretion; totality of voir dire showed R.D. could receive impressions, recollect, communicate, and appreciate truth-telling; competent to testify

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination and requirement of warnings during custodial interrogation)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (definition of "custody" for Miranda purposes; reasonable-person inquiry)
Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (police-station questioning does not automatically make an interrogation custodial)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (government must prove waiver of Miranda rights by preponderance; voluntariness standard)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (absence of coercive police conduct relevant to voluntariness of statements)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for voluntariness of confessions)
State v. Frazier, 61 Ohio St.3d 247 (factors for child-witness competency: perception, recollection, communication, understanding of truth/falsity, appreciation of duty to tell truth)
State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio standards on proving valid Miranda waiver)
State v. Lather, 110 Ohio St.3d 270 (a waiver may be inferred from behavior under totality of circumstances)