144 So. 3d 56
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Williams pled guilty conditionally under Crosby, reserving appeal of pretrial suppression rulings on two statements.
- Coleman identified Williams as the iPhone thief on Bourbon Street; Williams was arrested and Miranda warnings were given by memory.
- A search incident to arrest recovered Coleman’s iPhone from Williams’ pocket.
- First Statement occurred during a walk to the station after arrest; Williams said he shouldn’t have been on Bourbon Street and apologized.
- At the station Detective Nolan provided a Voluntary Statement Form; Williams signed it and made the Second Statement that he took the iPhone to replace parts on his own phone.
- District court denied suppression of both statements; Williams appealed, contending Miranda warnings were insufficient for the First Statement and the Second Statement was involuntary; this court reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the First Statement suppressible due to incomplete Miranda warnings? | Williams | Durning failed to inform right to counsel before interrogation | First Statement suppressed |
| Was the Second Statement voluntary and admissible? | Williams | Nolan adequately warned and Williams knowingly waived rights | Second Statement admitted |
| Does harmless error apply to Crosby-plea remands for pretrial rulings? | Williams | Harmless error applies | Harmless error analysis in Crosby context not applicable; remand for withdrawal/new trial if appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ulmer, 116 So.3d 1004 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2013) (trial court’s suppression ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Wells, 45 So.3d 577 (La. 2010) (Miranda/waiver standards reviewed)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (required warnings before custodial interrogation; right to counsel)
- State v. Payne, 833 So.2d 927 (La. 2002) (stresses that warning must convey right to counsel; not mere form)
- Harris, 98 So.3d 903 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (reiterates that verbatim recitation of warnings is not required; needs clear conveyance of rights)
- State v. Harvill, 403 So.2d 706 (La. 1981) (no re-Mirandizing absent significant break in interrogation)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercive police activity affecting voluntariness of waiver)
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (Miranda warnings need not be identical in form)