State v. Sparkling, 363 S.W.3d 46

Sparkling was interrogated while in custody; interview lasted ~2 hours and was videotaped.
Sparkling was charged with forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and armed criminal action.
Sparkling moved to suppress the statements on the grounds of improper Miranda warnings and lack of knowing, intelligent waiver.
Trial court found no evidence Sparkling understood his rights and suppressed the statements.
State appealed interlocutorily under section 547.200.1, asserting a valid waiver under totality of circumstances.
Video showed no audible indication of understanding; Sparkling signed the Statement of Rights without reading or initialing rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved a knowing and intelligent waiver.	State argued waiver shown by reading rights, signing form, and discussion.	Sparkling contends waiver was not shown to be knowing and intelligent under totality of circumstances.	Yes; waiver not shown; suppression affirmed.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial warnings required to safeguard rights)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (preponderance standard; warnings alone not enough)
Zurbst (Zerbst) v. Powell, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (voluntary relinquishment requires knowledge of rights)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (two-dimensional waiver: voluntary and awareness of rights)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (U.S. 1979) (totality of circumstances for knowing waiver)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, — U.S.—, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (U.S. 2010) (under totality, must show understanding of rights for waiver)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (initiated dialogue after invoking counsel; waiver assessed under totality)
State v. Bucklew, 973 S.W.2d 83 (Mo. banc 1998) (consideration of background, experience, and conduct in waiver analysis)
State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. banc 1990) (standard of review for suppression rulings; credibility determinations)