State v. BrownState v. Brown
Dеfendant, Isaac Brown, was convicted of first-degree murder of Police Officer Richard Miller in violation of
On August 25, 1981, defendant; his brother, Roberto Lynn Brown; and defendant’s girl friend, Evetta Cotton, drove defendant’s stolen pickup truck to 16th Street and Girard Avenue in North Minneapolis. Evetta drove the truck while defendant sat in the passenger seat аnd Roberto laid on the truck bed under a camper top. Defendant wanted to sell stolen stereo equipment to Raymond Samuels, who lived in a house at the corner of 16th and Girard. Defendant and Samuels negotiated for approximately 15 minutes over the price of the stereo equipment.
During defendant’s conversation with Samuels, Officer Miller, dressed in full uniform and in a police squad car, drove along side the truck and asked, “Whose car is
Defendant and Evetta ran from the scene and hid for 3 days in a friend’s apartment in South Minneapolis. A minister, a family friend, wаs sent by Evetta’s mother to talk to defendant. The minister convinced defendant that he should surrender and accompanied him to the police station.
Upon arrest, defendant displayed brief emotional distress. He was given time to calm down, and he was read his Miranda rights before he gave his six-page confession.
Defendant was indicted by the grand jury on one count of murder in the first dеgree under
1. The first issue raised on appeal centers on the trial court’s admission into evidence of a statement defendant made to the police on April 7, 1981. The facts surrounding the April 7, 1981, incident are as follows.
During the early morning of April 7, 1981, defendant and a friend, Jamie Dixon, drove in Dixon’s vehicle to the vicinity of Dunlap and Ashland Avеnues. Responding to a call to investigate suspicious activity, St. Paul Police Officers Patrick Lyttle and Mike Keller saw defendant and Dixon standing in the street. The officers pat searched both men for the purpose of checking for weapons, placed them in the squad car, and questioned them to determine what they were doing in the neighborhood.
Officer John McCreight arrived at the scene as a backup in response to the original call. He proceeded to examine Dixon’s vehicle. With his flashlight, McCreight searched the exterior and interior of the vehicle. From the passenger window, he saw a pair of num-chucks, orientаl fighting sticks, protruding from under the front seat. The transportation or possession of num-chucks is a misdemeanor under St. Paul Legislative Code § 225.06(2). 1
After Officers Lyttle and Keller drove defendant and Dixon to Dixon’s vehicle, McCreight asked Lyttle to examine the num-chucks still inside Dixon’s vehicle. McCreight then entered Dixon’s vehicle and seized the num-chuсks and also seized a
Officer McCreight asked Dixon whether the seized items belonged to him. Dixon denied owning them and said that they belonged to defendant. Defendant thereupon admitted ownership of the num-chucks and marijuana.
Defendant was arrested, was placed in Officer McCreight’s squad car, and was read his Miranda rights. While McCreight was driving defendant to police headquarters, defendant and McCreight briefly discussed defendant’s offense and bail. Sometime later during the ride, defendant voluntarily and without interrogation told McCreight that “the next time that he’s arrested, he is going to make sure that he has his pistol with him аnd that we would never take him alive again. He was going to take a few cops with him too.”
The trial court denied defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress this statement. At trial, the court properly restricted testimony to the facts surrounding defendant’s statement. Only Officer McCreight testified, and his testimony was limited to the immediate cirсumstances surrounding defendant’s voluntary statement. There was no testimony at trial regarding defendant’s alleged crime of possession of an assault weapon.
Defendant contends that his statement of April 7, 1981, should have been suppressed because the police conduct constituted an illegal arrest and an illegal search and seizure. Defendant’s argument that he was illegally arrested is unsupported by the evidence. When Officers Lyttle and Keller responded to a suspicious activity call, they had the right and duty to investigate suspicious behavior.
See State v. Fish,
Defendant supports his illegal arrest argument by asserting that the officers should have issued him a citation in lieu of making a custodial arrest. Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6.01, subd. l(l)(a), sets forth the standard to be used in determining whether Officer McCreight was justified in placing defendant under custodial arrest for a misdemeanor violation. Rule 6.01, subd. l(l)(a) reads, in pertinent part:
Law enforcement officers acting without a warrant, who have decided to prоceed with prosecution, shall issue citations to persons subject to lawful arrest for misdemeanors, unless it reasonably appears to the officer that arrest or detention is necessary to prevent bodily harm to the accused or another or further criminal conduct, or that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will fail to respond to a citation.
Because Officer McCreight was aware that defendant had previously failed to appear for citations issued to him, McCreight could reasonably conclude that there was a substantial likelihood that defendant would again fail to respond to a citation if issued. Thus, McCreight’s decision to place defendant under custodial arrest was justified.
Defendant’s contention that police conduct in seizing the num-chucks and marijuana amounted to an illegal search and seizure is without merit. The officers entered Dixon’s vehicle, not defendant’s, to seize the items. Defendant failed to establish any “legitimate expectation of privacy” regarding Dixon’s vehicle. Thus, he lacks standing to attack the alleged illegal search and seizure.
See United States v. Salvucci,
Moreover, we hold that the trial court properly admitted defendant’s statement because, after he was placed in Me-
2. Defendant’s next contention is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his confession made on August 28, 1981. After defendant surrendered to the police, he was given time to calm down emotionally and to compose himself before he made his confession. He subsequently was read his Miranda warnings and made a six-page, signed confession. Defendant argues that the state failed to meet its burden of proof that defendant’s confession was the product of a voluntary waiver of his right to remain silent. He also argues that the statement was made without his attorney present. Defendant’s contentions are without merit on both accounts.
From a review of the record, we are convinced that the state met its burden of proof that defendant’s confession was voluntarily and freely givеn. Defendant’s confession was not extracted by any sort of threat, promise, or violence. In fact, the officer’s testimony evinced a very real and present awareness of how important it was to give defendant time to calm down and allow his confession to be the product of an essentially free and vоluntary choice. Defendant was 23 years old, and there is no allegation that he was intoxicated, drugged, or suffering from any mental impairment when he made the statement. Thus, the trial court could properly conclude that, based upon the “totality of relevant circumstances,” including such factors as age, maturity, intelligеnce, education, experience, and ability to comprehend, defendant’s statement was voluntarily given.
See State v. Orscanin,
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred when it admitted his confession into evidence because he had retained counsel on an unrelated criminal matter prior to August 28, 1981, and thus, his fifth and sixth amendment rights to counsel were violated. However, defendant never told the police officers that he had previously retained counsel and that he wanted his attorney present prior to making his confession. After defendant was read his rights under
Miranda
and acknowledged that he understood his rights, he expressed no desire to speak with аn attorney before making his confession. Thus, under these facts, the trial court properly concluded that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
See Edwards v. Arizona,
3. Defendant additionally contends that it was prejudicial error to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Frank Abuzzahab, a psychiatrist practicing psy-chopharmacology, that because of intoxication from ingesting alcohol and smoking marijuana, defendant could nоt have formed the requisite specific intent to be convicted of first-degree murder under the intentional killing of a peace officer statute. The claim is without merit, for as we held in
State v. Bouwman,
Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
[[Image here]]
(4) Causes the death of a peace officer or a guard employed at a Minnesota state correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the peace officer or guard is engaged in the performance of his official duties.
Defendant argues that the peace officer stаtute violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment solely on the basis that a person who kills a peace officer is treated differently from a person who kills any other citizen. For the peace officer statute to be held constitutional in the face of an equal protection challenge, there must be a rational basis for having enacted such a law.
See State v. Pehrson,
The legislature presumаbly sought to protect police officers, who are highlyvvul-nerable when engaged in the performance of their duties, by making the slaying of a peace officer a crime of first-degree murder punishable by life imprisonment. The United States Supreme Court in
Terry v. Ohio,
Affirmed.
Notes
. Num-chucks are an assault weapon. Transportation or possession of them is a misdemean- or under St. Paul Legislative Code § 225.06(2), which reads, in pertinent part:
Transportation of firearms, assаult weapons, or knives. It shall be a misdemeanor to transport firearms, assault weapons, or knives in any manner other than enumerated herein:
******
(2) Assault weapons and knives.
(a) In a motor vehicle only if the assault weapon or knife is placed in a secured container and located in the trunk of the vehicle; except if there is no trunk the assault weapon or knive must be placed in a secured container and placed in the farthest rear portion of the vehicle.
(b) Not in a motor vehicle only if the assault weapon or knife is in a secured container and is being carried between the home or business of the owner and a motor vehicle, weapons dealer, hunting area, or an officially recognized competition.
.
State v. Bouwman,