State v. DavisState v. Davis
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Russell
Thе state filed this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing defendant’s videotaped confession pursuant to
Following defendant’s arrest on charges unrelated to the current prosecution, he was read
Miranda
warnings, which he waived. Defendant initially made an oral statement denying involvement in the murder оf victim,
Defendant’s counsel made a motion to suppress both defendant’s initial oral confession as well as the videotaped confession. Thе trial court denied defendant’s motion as to the oral statement, but sustained the objection to the videotape. The state now appeals the trial cоurt’s suppression of the videotaped statement.
The state contends the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion to suppress the videotaped confеssion, arguing .that there was a preponderance of the evidence that defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The state maintains that when the trial court сonsidered two of the interrogating officers’ statements, taken out of context, it failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.
On motions to suppress, thе state bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion should be denied. State v. Heyer, 962 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Mo.App.1998). We view the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, disregarding contrary evidence and inferences, to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. The trial court’s ruling on a motion tо suppress evidence will be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous. Id.
In order to introduce defendant’s incriminating statements at trial, the prosecution must show that the evidеnce in question was obtained in compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda requires that before suspects may be questioned while in custody, law enforcement officials must inform accusеd persons of their rights. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Defendant does not dispute that he was informed of his Miranda rights.
The prosecution must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived their Miranda rights. State v. Powell, 798 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Mо. banc 1990). The standards to determine whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights are relatively clear. The choice must be “uncoerced,” and the defendant must be aware of his rights and the potential consequences of abandoning those rights. State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 650 (Mo. banc 1993). Whether a defendant has waived his Miranda rights is judged by the totality of the circumstances. Powell, 798 S.W.2d at 713.
In the case at bar, the totality of the circumstances surrounding defendаnt’s interrogation showed that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. Defendant was informed of his Miranda rights, and that he was a suspect in victim’s murder. Defendant subsequently made an oral confession. Following that statеment, police officers asked defendant if he would make a statement on videotape memorializing the oral confession he had just made to the officers, and defendant agreed. No evidence was presented that defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, nor that he suffered from any mental disease or defect during the interview.
On video, defendant was again informed of his rights and acknowledged that he understood those rights. Defendant was also told that questioning would cеase at any time he wished to assert his right to remain silent. At no time during the video interview did defendant clearly assert that right.
The trial court stressed, and defendant now relies on, the following exchange:
FIRST OFFICER: This is-this is not television.
SECOND OFFICER: This is not television. This is a videotape, okay?
VOICE OFFSCREEN: What’s gonna happen to this tape, I’ll take that tape, make a copy for your attorneys and then I’ll put it in the safe. Nobody else’ll see it. FIRST OFFICER: Nobody sees this. VOICE OFFSCREEN: § inaudible$ truth.
FIRST OFFICER: Okay? You want to make a statement?
The trial court found that the above portion of dialogue “effectively erased and rendered ineffective the previous warning’ administered by [second officer] at the beginning of the videotaping session as to the potential use of any statements made.” The court further found that “defendant reasonably believed and relied upon the promise made to him by the police that the statements about to be made could never be used against him in a Court.”
Although the trial court’s findings, after quoting the exchange at issue, note “Where upon, the defendant made a statement on video tаpe,” the defendant did not, in fact, agree to make a statement following that exchange. Defendant expressed further concerns regarding both his statement bеing on television and whether or not it would be “better” to make a statement. In addition, several exchanges were had prior to the excerpt quoted by the trial court in which police officers attempted to explain to defendant the distinction between television and the videotape procedure. Taken in context, the dialogue was as follows:
FIRST OFFICER: Do you want to talk about the same thing we talked about all over?
DEFENDANT: Not-not on this.
FIRST OFFICER: What?
DEFENDANT: Not on this.
FIRST OFFICER: I don’t understand what you mean.
DEFENDANT: Not on this, like, TV. FIRST OFFICER: Oh, no. This is-this is not-
SECOND OFFICER: This is not-
FIRST OFFICER: This is not television where it’s to say like Channel 2, 4, 5, or 30. This is not-this is not that. This is-this is our own television section here. You know, this is how we videotape it, videotape, uh, statements from people. Okay? So you want to give up thosе rights and make a statement to us?
DEFENDANT: If it’s gonna be for the best.
FIRST OFFICER: Well, yes or no? DEFENDANT: Is it?
FIRST OFFICER: Yes or no, do you want to make a statement?
DEFENDANT: Not on this.
FIRST OFFICER: What do you mean “not on this”?
DEFENDANT: TV.
FIRST OFFICER: This is-this is not television.
SECOND OFFICER: This is not television. This is a videotape, okay?
VOICE OFFSCREEN: What’s gonna happen to this tape, I’ll take that tape, make a copy for yоur attorneys and then I’ll put it in the safe. Nobody else’ll see it. FIRST OFFICER: Nobody sees this. VOICE OFFSCREEN: $inaudible$ truth. FIRST OFFICER: Okay? You want to make a statement?
DEFENDANT: $noresponse$
FIRST OFFICER: This is not going to be on television, if that’s what you’re thinking. No. Dоesn’t happen like that. You know howyou got videocameras. You’ve seen how videocameras work? It’s the same thing here. That’s-that all it is. So, you want to waive thоse rights and make a statement to us?
DEFENDANT: If it’s for the better I do. FIRST OFFICER: Well, you decide. Is it-is it for your better? Is it for the betterment of you?
DEFENDANT: $no response$
FIRST OFFICER: I can’t make that decision for you, Martiez. You’re gоing to have to make that decision for yourself. Again, like I said, all we’re gonna go over is basically the same questions that we did in the room. That’s all it is. DEFENDANT: $no response$
FIRST OFFICER: You want to make a statement?
DEFENDANT: I do, but I don’t.
FIRST OFFICER: Well, what do you mean?
DEFENDANT: $pause of 12 seconds! Yes, Fll-I’ll make a statement.
Taken as a whole, this dialogue shows that the police officers attempted to clarify for defendant that his stаtement would not be broadcast to the general television viewing public. Even if the assertion that “nobody sees this” rises to the level of subterfuge or trickery, that does not automatically render defendant’s statements inadmissible. State v. Wilson, 755 S.W.2d 707, 709 (Mo.App. 1988).
In Wilson, the interrogating detective told the defendant that he was not taping the interrogation although in fact he was. This court found that the detective’s statement was insufficient to render the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights ineffective. Id. We explained that trickery does not necessarily render statements involuntary, and therefore, inadmissible. Rather, statements obtained through subterfuge are admissible unless the deception offends societal notions of fairness or is likely tо procure an untrustworthy confession. Id.
The defendant’s statements made on videotape are consistent with his oral confession made to the police just minutеs prior to the videotaping. Considering the totality of the circumstances, defendant waived his Miranda rights. Like the detective’s statement in Wilson, the police officers’ statements herein are not so offensive as to render defendant’s confession involuntary. Nor do we find them likely to procure an untrue statement from the defendant. The trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s motion to suppress.
The trial court’s order suppressing defendant’s videotaped statement is reversed and the ease remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GARY M. GAERTNER and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ., concur.