State v. Ruff
360 S.W.3d 880
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- J.E., 14, began dating D.R. in late 2008; sexual relationship began in early 2009 at ages 14 and 17.
- The couple kept their relationship secret due to illegality; J.E. learned the conduct was illegal from her mother.
- D.R. transported to the police station for questioning after a detective learned of him as a suspect; interview conducted at the station and videotaped.
- D.R. was charged with second-degree child molestation; a suppression motion was filed asserting Miranda waiver was not knowing/voluntary and a claim of unlawful detention.
- The trial court denied suppression; videotape admitted over objection; jury convicted and sentenced D.R. to a $1,000 fine; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unlawful-seizure claim was preserved for appeal. | Ruff preserved the seizure claim via the suppression motion. | Claim sought to suppress may be broad, including seizure. | Not preserved; appellate review denied on this basis. |
| Whether the Miranda waiver was voluntary and knowing. | Waiver not voluntary/knowing because of unlawful seizure and misleading interview context. | Waiver understood rights; videotaped process showed no coercion. | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; admission affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 698 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. banc 1985) (preservation requirements for suppression)
- State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. banc 1995) (objection specificity for preservation governs review)
- State v. Jackson, 248 S.W.3d 117 (Mo.App.2008) (standard for reviewing suppression denials)
- State v. Bucklew, 973 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. banc 1998) (totality-of-circumstances for voluntariness of waiver)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (mandatory warnings and consequences of waiver)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (two-dimensional waiver—voluntary and knowing under totality)
- State v. Nunnery, 129 S.W.3d 13 (Mo.App.2004) (knowing/voluntary waiver standard in Missouri)
- State v. Mateo, 335 S.W.3d 529 (Mo.App.2011) (factors for determining knowing/voluntary waiver)
- State v. Wilkinson, 861 S.W.2d 746 (Mo.App.1993) (coercion-free determination for confession)
- State v. Johnson, 988 S.W.2d 115 (Mo.App.1999) (prima facie evidence of voluntariness when rights explained)