STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATALIE MARIE ANGLE, Defendant and Appellant.
#29208-a-MES
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
2021 S.D. 21, OPINION FILED 04/07/21
2021 S.D. 21
THE HONORABLE PATRICK T. PARDY, Judge
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LAKE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS AUGUST 24, 2020.
JASON R. RAVNSBORG, Attorney General, ANN C. MEYER, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.
MANUEL J. DE CASTRO, JR., Madison, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appellant.
[¶1.] Natalie Marie Angle appeals her convictions for vehicular homicide and driving under the influence, arguing that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress statements to law enforcement following the accident, which prompted this case. Angle also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions. We affirm.
Background
[¶2.] Natalie Angle left her boyfriend‘s home in Madison at around 5:15 p.m. on December 17, 2018, and was driving her sport utility vehicle (SUV) west on Highway 34 near the small community of Junius when she swerved over the center line and collided with an eastbound pickup driven by James Birgen. An investigation later revealed that Angle‘s SUV made contact with Birgen‘s pickup behind the driver‘s-side door. The force of the impact flipped the pickup onto its side. Birgen was ejected from the truck and was fatally injured.
[¶3.] Angle‘s SUV rolled several times and came to rest upright in the south ditch of Highway 34. A truck driver traveling a short distance behind Birgen saw the entire accident, including Birgen being thrown from his pickup. He stopped to render such assistance as he could in the
[¶4.] Deputy Grant Lanning with the Lake County Sheriff‘s Department was the first law enforcement officer to arrive on the scene. After checking Birgen for vital signs and finding none, he approached Angle‘s vehicle. Deputy Lanning was soon joined by Officer Heath Abraham from the Madison Police Department, and the two visited with Angle in an effort to keep her calm1 while waiting for emergency personnel to extract her from her heavily damaged vehicle. Both Deputy Lanning and Officer Abraham detected the smell of an alcoholic beverage, and Angle admitted she had been drinking prior to the accident.
[¶5.] Once Angle was removed from her SUV, she was transported to the Madison Regional Hospital. Officer Abraham followed in his patrol vehicle while Deputy Lanning obtained a search warrant authorizing officers to obtain a sample of Angle‘s blood. A sample taken at 7:34 p.m.—two hours after the accident—subsequently revealed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .243. A second blood test obtained at 8:43 p.m. showed a BAC of .220.
[¶6.] At 9:05 p.m., Deputy Lanning requested an interview with Angle at the hospital. A short while before, Lake County Sheriff Tim Walburg had told Deputy Lanning to provide Angle with Miranda2 warnings, and if she waived her rights, to “get as much information as he could.” Deputy Lanning did not have with him a preprinted card containing the Miranda warnings often carried by law enforcement officers. See State v. Willingham, 2019 S.D. 55, ¶ 36, 933 N.W.2d 619, 628 (noting officer‘s use of preprinted Miranda warning card to advise suspect). Working from memory, he had the following exchange with Angle:
Deputy Lanning: OK. You have the continuing right to remain silent and stop questioning at any time. Anything you say could be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present. Ok. You have the right to stop questioning at any time. So, what I am saying is you don‘t have to talk to me if you don‘t want to. Do you understand that?
Angle: Yea.
Deputy Lanning: Ok are you ok with answering some questions tonight?
Angle: Umm, depends on your questions.
Deputy Lanning: Ok.
Angle: Then I‘ll decide.
Deputy Lanning: If there are some that you don‘t want to answer, then just tell me. You know, just give me the common courtesy to say hey I don‘t want to answer that, and I‘ll respect that.
Angle: Yeah uh huh.
[¶7.] During the interview, Angle admitted to drinking before the accident and to being distracted by her dogs in the backseat. After the interview, Sheriff Walburg spoke with Angle and advised her that Birgen had been killed as a result of the crash. He placed Angle under arrest and transported her to the Lake County Jail after she was discharged from the hospital a short time later. A Lake County grand jury returned an indictment charging Angle with one count of vehicular homicide
[¶8.] After conducting a hearing, the circuit court denied Angle‘s motion to suppress. The court recognized that Deputy Lanning had provided Angle with three of the four advisories required by Miranda, omitting the right to appointed counsel. However, the court concluded that the fact Deputy Lanning advised Angle of her right to have an attorney present sufficiently communicated her separate right to appointed counsel. The court went on to find that Angle voluntarily waived her rights before she was questioned.
[¶9.] Angle waived her right to a jury trial, and the case was tried to the circuit court on October 23, 2019. Prior to trial, the parties entered into several stipulations regarding the admission of evidence. Included among these was a stipulation of fact, which established that the December 17 crash was the cause of Birgen‘s death. A separate stipulation acknowledged that the two blood samples taken from Angle had produced BAC results of .242 approximately two hours after the crash and .220 three hours after the crash. In addition, an affidavit from a state chemist was admitted without objection and contained the expert opinion that Angle‘s BAC was approximately .274 at the time of the accident.
[¶10.] As part of its case-in-chief, the State also provided expert testimony from South Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper Jeremy Gacke, who is a certified accident reconstructionist. Citing the findings of his investigation, Trooper Gacke testified that Angle was traveling approximately 85 miles per hour, 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, at the time she collided with Birgen‘s pickup. In Trooper Gacke‘s opinion, Angle did not apply her brakes before the collision, which, he concluded, occurred when she crossed the centerline and struck the pickup halfway inside the eastbound lane of Highway 34.
[¶11.] At the close of the State‘s case, Angle moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had not proven that she was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. The court denied Angle‘s motion and found her guilty of vehicular homicide and driving under the influence (DUI) under
[¶12.] For the vehicular homicide conviction, the circuit court sentenced Angle to fifteen years in the penitentiary with credit for 350 days served and two years suspended upon certain conditions. The court also sentenced Angle to 350 days in county jail for Angle‘s DUI-first offense conviction with credit for 350 days served.
[¶13.] Angle presents two arguments for our review:
-
Whether the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress her statement at the hospital. - Whether the circuit court erred when it denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Analysis
Miranda Warnings
[¶14.] Requiring law enforcement officers to provide Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation protects an individual‘s constitutional privileges “against self-incrimination and [the] right to retained or appointed counsel.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S. Ct. at 1628. We review “the denial of a motion to suppress based on the alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard of review.” Willingham, 2019 S.D. 55, ¶ 21, 933 N.W.2d at 625 (quoting State v. Rolfe, 2018 S.D. 86, ¶ 10, 921 N.W.2d 706, 709).
[¶15.] Whenever a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation,4 officers must give four basic warnings: “[1] the right to remain silent, [2] that anything [she] says can be against [her] in a court of law, [3] that [she] has the right to the presence of an attorney, [4] and that if [she] cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for [her] prior to any questioning if [she] so desires.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S. Ct. at 1630. The requirement to provide a complete statement of Miranda warnings, including notice of the right to appointed counsel, is unyielding:
In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of [her] rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn [her] not only that [she] has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if [she] is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent [her]. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that [she] can consult with a lawyer if [she] has one or has the funds to obtain one. The warning of a right to counsel would be hollow if not couched in terms that would convey to the indigent—the person most often subjected to interrogation—the knowledge that [she] too has a right to have counsel present.
Id. at 473, 86 S. Ct. at 1627 (emphasis added).
[¶16.] This is not to say, however, that the Miranda rule requires rigid conformity to a prescribed script or “talismanic incantation.” California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 360, 101 S. Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1981); see also Willingham, 2019 S.D. 55, ¶ 35, 933 N.W.2d at 628 (“[T]he words of Miranda do not constitute a ritualistic formula which must be repeated without variation in order to be effective. Words which convey the substance of the warning along with the required information are sufficient.” (quoting Evans v. Swenson, 455 F.2d 291, 295 (8th Cir. 1972))). Instead, either the warnings themselves or their functional equivalent will suffice for Miranda compliance. Prysock, 453 U.S. at 360, 101 S. Ct. at 2809
In determining whether police officers adequately conveyed the four warnings, we have said, reviewing courts are not required to examine the words employed as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. The inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conve[y] to [a suspect] [her] rights as required by Miranda.
State v. Ralios, 2010 S.D. 43, ¶ 25, 783 N.W.2d 647, 655 (quoting Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 1204, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1009 (2010)); see also Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203, 109 S. Ct. 2875, 2880, 106 L. Ed. 2d 166 (1989).
[¶17.] Here, the circuit court correctly determined that “three of the four tenets of Miranda were explicitly provided to [Angle].” The court acknowledged that Deputy Lanning did not inform Angle of her right to have an attorney appointed prior to questioning.5 However, the court reasoned that Deputy Lanning had, nevertheless, “reasonably conveyed to Defendant her rights as required by Miranda” because, while not “explicitly told how she could get the advice of an attorney, she was told that she could have one present; therefore, the important part of the right was fulfilled.” We are unable to accept this view.
[¶18.] The circuit court‘s determination effectively eliminated the need to advise individuals subject to custodial questioning that they have a specific right to appointed counsel. As a consequence, the court‘s rationale allows the distinct right-to-counsel notice to fulfill its own Miranda requirement and also implicitly communicate the separate right to appointed counsel. However, advising a defendant of her right to have an attorney present during questioning is not the functional equivalent of telling her she has the right to appointed counsel.6 We have reviewed Deputy Lanning‘s extemporized recitation of the Miranda warnings carefully, and we cannot discern anything else in his advisory that would, in some way, provide Angle with notice of her right to appointed counsel. Notice of the right was, simply put,
[¶19.] A failure to provide adequate Miranda warnings requires suppression. “The Miranda exclusionary rule . . . serves the Fifth Amendment and sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 1291-92, 84 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1985). Because of this, suppression may be required in the absence of a Fifth Amendment violation, and even “unwarned statements that are otherwise voluntary . . . must nevertheless be excluded from evidence under Miranda.”7 Id. The circuit court should have granted Angle‘s motion to suppress.
[¶20.] This does not require us to reverse Angle‘s convictions, however. We believe the evidence against Angle was overwhelming even in the absence of the admissions she made at the hospital, and the error was unquestionably harmless. See State v. Lewandowski, 2019 S.D. 2, ¶ 34, 921 N.W.2d 915, 924 (holding that “even if the statements had been unlawfully obtained” the error was harmless given independent overwhelming evidence to support defendant‘s convictions).
[¶21.] Here, even without Angle‘s admission at the hospital that she had been drinking and was distracted by her dogs, the State introduced evidence at trial from the truck driver who witnessed the accident. Based upon his personal observations of the entire accident sequence of events, he testified that Angle was traveling at a high rate of speed and crossed over the center line into Birgen‘s lane where she collided with him. The truck driver also saw Birgen ejected from his truck and land violently on the road surface. In addition, Angle‘s boyfriend testified that she had filled a “to go” mug with whiskey and Diet Coke before leaving his house, and the state chemist‘s affidavit expressed his unrebutted opinion that Angle‘s BAC at the time of the accident was likely .274.
[¶22.] Still too, there is Angle‘s separate admission that she had been drinking made to Deputy Lanning at the scene of the crash while she was waiting to be removed from her vehicle. Both Deputy Lanning and Officer Abraham testified that they smelled the odor of alcoholic beverages, and Deputy Lanning‘s question to Angle about drinking, though unwarned, would not have triggered the need for Miranda warnings because Angle was indisputably not in custody. Angle may have been unable to move freely as she waited for emergency personnel to extricate her from her damaged vehicle, but that was a consequence of the collision—not action by law enforcement officers. See California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1123, 103 S. Ct. 3517, 3519, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1275 (1983) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S. Ct. at 1612) (“by custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way“).8
[¶23.] “Denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.” State v. Ware, 2020 S.D. 20, ¶ 12, 942 N.W.2d 269, 272 (quoting State v. Traversie, 2016 S.D. 19, ¶ 9, 877 N.W.2d 327, 330). “On appeal, ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.‘” Id. (quoting State v. Martin, 2015 S.D. 2, ¶ 13, 859 N.W.2d 600, 606).
[¶24.] The offense of vehicular homicide includes the following essential elements:
- That the defendant at the time and place . . . operated or drove a motor vehicle in a negligent manner.
- That the defendant at the time and place was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.
- That the negligent operation or driving was a proximate cause of the death . . . .
- That the defendant did so without a design to effect the death . . . .
State v. Lamont, 2001 S.D. 92, ¶ 14, 631 N.W.2d 603, 608. See also
[¶25.] The theory of driving while under the influence for which Angle was convicted required proof that she was “in actual physical control of any vehicle while . . . [t]here is 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in . . . [her] blood as shown by chemical analysis . . . .”
[¶26.] As discussed above, even without Angle‘s admissions to Deputy Lanning at the hospital, the evidence supports her convictions, and the circuit court correctly denied her motion for judgment of acquittal. The parties’ partial stipulation of facts established that Angle was driving her SUV at the time of the fatal collision and that Birgen died as a result of the injuries he sustained in the crash. Beyond this, the State‘s accident reconstructionist provided unrebutted expert testimony that Angle was driving 20 miles per hour over the posted speed limit and crossed the center line of Highway 34 to approximately the middle of the eastbound lane before colliding with Birgen‘s vehicle without applying her brakes. We have no difficulty accepting this as sufficient proof that Angle was negligent and that her negligence was the proximate cause of Birgen‘s death.
[¶27.] Also undisputed are the expert opinions of the state chemist admitted by stipulation. The parties admitted that blood samples taken from Angle two and three hours after the crash yielded respective results of .242 and .220 alcohol by weight. In addition, the chemist‘s affidavit was admitted without objection and included his expert opinion that Angle‘s blood alcohol content was .274 at the time of the collision. The opinion, the chemist stated, was based on standard absorption rates and the assumption that Angle was in the post-absorptive phase of alcohol metabolization, meaning the alcohol was no longer in her stomach and had been absorbed into her blood. There was no evidence to suggest that either of these assumptions was unsound or rendered the ultimate opinion unreliable.9
Conclusion
[¶29.] Although the circuit court erred by denying Angle‘s suppression motion, Deputy Lanning‘s failure to advise her that she had the right to appointed counsel before questioning her at the hospital was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against her. The circuit court did not err when it denied Angle‘s motion for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence to sustain her convictions for vehicular homicide and driving under the influence. We affirm.
[¶30.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN and DEVANEY, Justices, and GILBERTSON, Retired Chief Justice, concur.
[¶31.] MYREN, Justice, having not been a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.
SALTER
Justice