State v. Raines, 2011 Ohio 3735

Raines was indicted March 30, 2010 on aggravated robbery (deadly weapon) with a firearm specification and aggravated burglary (deadly weapon) with a firearm specification, felonies of the first degree.
Raines pled not guilty and moved to suppress; the trial court denied the suppression motion after a hearing.
On August 6, 2010, Raines pled no contest and was sentenced to four years on each count, to be served concurrently, plus three years on merged firearm specifications for an aggregate of seven years.
Olmstead, a Dayton police officer, conducted a custodial interview at the First District after presenting Miranda rights using a pre-interview form; Raines signed the form and initialed the rights.
Gilbert, the victim, identified Raines from a six-photo array after instruction read verbatim by Olmstead, with Gilbert selecting Raines’ photo within about 30 seconds.
Raines’ mother testified about his condition post-incident; Raines testified he suffered head injuries, sought medical treatment, and claimed he provided statements under coercive conditions to obtain treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the confession voluntary and knowingly made?	Raines asserts medical treatment was withheld to coerce confession.	State contends waiver was voluntary under totality of circumstances.	Waiver voluntary; confession admissible.
Was the Miranda waiver knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made given medical circumstances?	Raines claims medical needs tainted waiver.	State argues waiver valid under totality of circumstances.	Waiver knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
Was Gilbert’s identification in the photo array admissible given the array’s form?	Array was unduly suggestive because Raines’ photo was larger.	Identification was not unduly suggestive; otherwise reliable under totality of circumstances.	Identification admissible; not unduly suggestive.

North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (standard for knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights)
State v. Foster, 82 Ohio St.3d 560 (Ohio 2004) (waiver and custodial interrogation considerations in Ohio)
State v. Hill, 37 Ohio App.3d 10 (Ohio App. 1987) (limitations on suggestive identification procedures)