*1 STATE OF MONTANA, Appellee, Plaintiff and v BRANDEN DALE GITTENS, Appellant.
Defendant
No. DA 06-0001.
on Briefs
Submitted
November
2006.
February 15,
Decided
2008.
MT
For Hon. Appellee: Attorney Mike Montana Joslyn Hunt, M. Attorney General, Helena; Assistant Brant Light, County Attorney, Cascade Joel Thompson, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls.
JUSTICE NELSON Opinion delivered the of the Court. Branden Dale Gittens was convicted in the District Court for the Eighth District, Judicial County, felony Cascade of one count of possession dangerous criminal drugs with intent to distribute and one misdemeanor count of criminal possession drug paraphernalia. He appeals from these convictions and from denial ofhis motion suppress. We affirm. appeal issues on are as follows:
1. Did the denying District Court err in Gittens’ motion to suppress statements, alleged based on the State’s failure to show properly that Gittens was Mirandized? admitting testimony
2. Did the District Court err in that Gittens crimes, wrongs, claimed was inadmissible evidence of other 404(b)? acts under M. R. Evid.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 24,2004, On September County Cascade Sheriffs Deputy Thomas stop Eagle, Dalton made a traffic Black requested Montana. Dalton Engelberto and Ruiz backup Deputy arrived on the scene. The driver going stated that he was to Gittens’ house. Dalton was aware that Gittens had warrants issued for him in the so Dalton ran a past, discovering check. After county warrant Gittens had active arrest, warrants for his Dalton and Ruiz proceed, allowed the driver to they followed the vehicle to Gittens’ residence. Ruiz While went house, front door Dalton made contact with outside of the house. Dalton back door advised Gittens that there awas arrest, for his warrant out and Dalton then placed Gittens under arrest. Dalton could smell the odor of burning marijuana coming from person. requested permission from received individuals,
Gittens to search the house. Two other Aguon Richard Smithson, present house, Alex were also in the although Smithson left soon after. Ruiz went to search the basement and discovered a 316.4- gram brick of encased Ruiz also located a cooler. bongs, marijuana pipes, plastic scale, number of baggies, a several “High magazine, issues of Times” drug other assorted *3 Three of paraphernalia. Dogg,” these items bore the “B which words discovering marijuana, was Gittens’ nickname. After the brick of Ruiz Dalton, and came along notified down to the with basement appeared Gittens. Dalton observed Gittens started to shake and Ruiz visibly upset seeing Upon searching after what had discovered. house, drug the remainder of the Ruiz additional discovered in Gittens’ bedroom and a inside a paraphernalia “party hookah”1 box living in the room. supervisor, the shift Sergeant Dyken, Dalton contacted Scott Van Dyken
who arrived a short while later. Van recommended that Dalton bring videotape reading Gittens out ofthe house to of Dalton’s to memorialize that and Gittens had consented to the Dalton then took patrol search of his house. Gittens outside to the car rights. patrol him The car to read had an on-board video camera recording capabilities; however, explained, later with audio as Dalton difficulties, microphone pick up due to technical did not the video, to the in to regard conversation. Gittens asserted his motion “party large bong a Ruiz described the hookah” as “three tubes so three with people once can smoke at ...” “the face videotape adequately does not show the of suppress questioned by the law enforcement officer.” Dalton person being suppression hearing agreed at the that Gittens to talk to him testified rights. to waive his Dalton further testified that Gittens agreed and away trading marijuana Dyken and for “stuff.”Van admitted to as to the malfunction and that he equipment’s testified also began Dalton advised Gittens of his Miranda and present when Dyken questions him. Van later asked Gittens several and questioning gave that Gittens stated that he traded and marijuana also testified other people. Gittens, Information, charged The State with Count I-criminal dangerous drugs distribute, with intent to
possession felony of 45-9-103,MCA,and Count possession drug violation of II-criminal of § 45-10-103, a misdemeanor in of paraphernalia, violation MCA. § guilty pleaded charges. Gittens not to the On December suppress filed a motion to all the following statements made ground that the his arrest on State had failed to demonstrate that Mirandized. The properly response he was State filed a to Gittens’ motion, the District Court held a suppression hearing February and on hearing testimony Deputy Dalton, Ruiz, After from Deputy Dyken, Gittens, Sergeant Van District Court denied the suppress. motion to 11, 2005, the State On March filed an Amended Information original counts, two
retaining adding charge an alternative I, namely, possession dangerous criminal drugs, felony, Count of 45-9-102, September violation of MCA. matter went to trial on § 26,2005, days. dire, lasted two Prior to voir defense counsel made 404(b) prevent a motion in limine under M. R. Evid. the State from introducing Gittens’ statements to officers that he sometimes motion, traded for “stuff.”The court denied Gittens’ and the testimony jury jury testimony heard on this matter. The also heard Dalton, Ruiz, Dyken, Aguon, from Van Gittens’ former roommate chemist following day, jury State Crime Lab Bahne Klietz. The guilty felony of one count criminal possession found Gittens intent dangerous drugs with to distribute one misdemeanor count drug paraphernalia. criminal possession years to ten The District sentenced Gittens at the Montana *4 years I, three suspended State Prison with on Count and six months County II, the in the Cascade Detention Center on Count two concurrently. appeal run This followed. sentences to 454
STANDARD OF REVIEW grant deny We review a district court’s decision to or a motion underlying findings to determine whether the suppress court’s fact clearly correctly are erroneous and whether the court interpreted and Lewis, 295, to those MT applied findings. 17, law State v. 2007 ¶ 10, 17, 731, 340 171 “A findings 17. trial court’s are ¶ ¶ clearly they supported by erroneous if are not substantial credible evidence, evidence, if the court has the effect of the misapprehended or if our of the record us a definite and review leaves with firm Lewis, conviction that a mistake has been made.” 17. ¶ generally evidentiary rulings review a district for We court’s an 340, McOmber, 10, v. MT abuse of discretion. State 2007 340 Mont. ¶ 262, 10, 690, A 173 P.3d 10. district court abuses its discretion if it ¶ ¶ arbitrarily employment judgment
acts without the of conscientious reason, injustice. resulting exceeds bounds substantial McOmber, standard, “Notwithstanding however, this deferential ¶ judicial discretion guided by principles law; must be the rules and thus, our standard of review is to the extent plenary discretionary ruling is based on a conclusion of law. In such circumstance, correctly we must determine whether the court McOmber, Price, v. interpreted (quoting law.” 10 ¶ 17). 79, 17, 502, 17, 45, 134 P.3d
DISCUSSION
denying
Issue One. Did the District Court err in
suppress
statements,
alleged
motion to
based on the State’s
properly
to show that Gittens was
Mirandized?
failure
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
II,
provide
Article
Section 25 of the Montana
that people
Constitution
Z.M.,
MT
right
122,
have the
not to incriminate themselves. In re
2007
278, 39,
490,
Supreme
39. The
Arizona,
in Miranda
right against
addressed the
self-incrimination
v.
(1966).
Supreme
384 U.S.
if the is made intelligently. waiver and State (1996) Cassell, 397, 400, 478, v. 280 Mont. 932 P.2d (citing 480 Miranda, 444, 86 1612); Lucero, 384 U.S. at S. Ct. at State v. 731, (1968), abrogated 735 grounds, on other Reavley, 298, 150,
v.
Mont.
318
visual record of Miranda
and the detainee’s waiver. State v.
(1995).
Grey,
206, 213, 907
However,
have
we
encouraged
preserve
law enforcement officers “to
tangible record
advising
their rights
defendants of
and a defendant’s
of those
waiver
rights.” Cassell,
403,
Indeed,
in the context of a custodial conducted at the station similarly circumstances, house or under other controlled failure of the officer police preserve tangible some record of his giving warning or her of the Miranda and the knowing, intelligent judicial waiver the detainee will be viewed with distrust in totality assessment of voluntariness under the of circumstances surrounding the confession or admission. Likewise,
Grey,
Mirandized. Gittens contends that the absence of proof’ warnings “recorded of the Miranda and his purported questions waiver of his Miranda raises numerous interrogation. According Gittens, about the “law enforcement did readily means warnings any have available to record Miranda subsequent rights” waiver exigent “[t]here of those were no justified recording any circumstances that would have not purported Thus, warning subsequent argues, waiver.” “law *6 enforcement should properly any purported have recorded Miranda warning subsequent waiver.” Gittens claims that without this recording, the State lacks clear evidence to show that he was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily Mirandized and that he rights. waived his Miranda Accordingly, argues Gittens that suppressing District Court erred in not statements. his argues The State that the District Court denied properly suppress. acknowledges foregoing motion to the State While Lawrence) holding Grey, (citing the State asserts Cassell and that only requirement is that “the officers establish to the district warnings properly given, court’s satisfaction that the Miranda were used, impermissible totality that no tactics were and that under the voluntary.” circumstances the confession was The State contends that met requirements testimony Deputy these were Dalton and Sergeant Dyken. Van outset, At the position we note that two facets of Gittens’ on
appeal analysis. First, entirely circumscribe our Gittens focuses on the sufficiency of the his proof State’s that he was Mirandized and waived rights. expressly present argument He does not claim or an Jones, involuntary. See State v. his statements were otherwise 209, 20-21, 294, 20-21, 142 851, 20- ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ (Whether 21 an accused was advised of his or her Miranda determining one factor to be considered in whether a confession or but given involuntarily.). admission was Second, at “all suppress Gittens’ motion to was directed September “after his arrest on 2004.”
statements” he made Likewise, “any on asserts that statements” he made appeal, Gittens
457
Dalton,
suppressed. According to
“after his arrest” should have been
with Gittens in
upon making
under arrest
contact
placed
he
warnings
the Miranda
until
yard, but did not read Gittens
the back
identify any
Yet, Gittens does not
after the search of the house.
in the interim between his arrest
statements that he made
particular
not offer an
warnings.
importantly,
More
does
and Miranda
volunteered,
e.g.
see
analysis
any
of whether
such statements were
315, 39,
Saxton,
105, 39,
MT
68 P.3d
State v.
Munson,
interrogation,”
or made
to a “custodial
see
pursuant
Rather,
noted,
at the
just
argument
21-25.
as
is directed
¶¶
that he
sufficiency
proof
of the State’s
that he was Mirandized and
rights. Accordingly,
waived his Miranda
we will not consider the
any
Marriage
matter of
“interim
See In re
statements” further.
McMahon,
175, 6,
1266, 6;
MT
M.
12(l)f.
App.
analysis
R.
P.
Our
will focus
on whether the
specifically
correctly
proof
District Court
concluded that the State’s
was sufficient.
Turning
question,
disagree
now to that
we
with Gittens’
suggestion
proof’
purported reading
that the lack of “recorded
of the
rights compels
suppression
waiver of his Miranda
of his
broadly. Indeed,
statements. Gittens reads our cases too
we have
explicitly recognized
may preclude
circumstances
the creation of
(“We
a tangible
e.g. Grey,
record. See
P.2d at 956
recognize,
example,
as one
that an
a
in the
Mirandizing suspect
officer
arrest, may
tangible
field at the time of
not be
a
record
preserve
able
waiver.”).
Thus,
of his or her
warning
or of the accused’s
preserve tangible
our statements that the failure to
record
result
will
in “distrust” and “extreme disfavor” have been directed at situations
in which
preserve
tangible
readily
the means to
record were
available,
officers failed to avail themselves of those means.
*7
(“[L]aw
Lawrence,
See
at
tangible record when the means to do so are available results Court, in that the lack extreme disfavor with the we have never said detainee’s statements. tangible suppression of record mandates ofthe
Rather, weighs this is one factor that simply heavily against the State meeting Accordingly, inquiry whether, its burden. proper evidence, based on all of the available the State has met its burden of that the officer read the detainee proving rights his or her Miranda rights detainee waived those voluntarily, knowingly, and the intelligently. Accordingly, we will consider the District Court whether concluding light erred in that the State met its burden proof of of all of the available evidence. dispute There a factual between was Gittens and the State at the
suppression hearing as to whether Gittens Mirandized. Gittens rights only testified that Dalton never advised him ofhis Miranda him, your rights, right?” asked “Youknow to which Gittens claims he guess.” explained “I Gittens this “I replied, response as follows: kind before, because I’vebeen in that he get understood situation didn’t supposed into-where he was to be.” Gittens that Dalton never alleged got specific. Gittens stated that Dalton never offered him a written and that he did not know of his waiver because was not informed of them. contrast, Dalton testified that suspect whenever he advised a rights, her Miranda he used a his or card with the text of the it. Dalton confirmed
warnings printed on that he used this card when rights, and Dalton read he read Gittens his the text ofthe card into the suppression hearing. record at the The card stated: right you say to remain silent. can Anything You have against you right used in a court of You have the will be law. lawyer your lawyer you’re being to a and have present talk while questioned. you lawyer, If cannot afford to hire one will be free represent you any you. cost to You can decide appointed any any questions time to exercise these and not answer any or make statements. stating: further testified that the card a section
Dalton contained ask, you ‘Do each of these “Waiver after understand secondly, knowing rights, these to talk to me rights? you And do wish ” now?’ that after the search the house and the explained discovery drug paraphernalia, he took Gittens car, patrol pulled Dalton’s the Miranda card out of out to the front of rights, read his and asked him if he understood pocket, Gittens, you specifically testified that he “Do them. Dalton asked and, you do rights?” “knowing rights, each of these these understand “yes” Dalton stated replied to talk to me now?” that Gittens wish
459 reading Gittens that the reason for explained Dalton questions. both the car had a video car was because patrol front of the rights his being to record Gittens and Dalton wanted audio recorder camera rights. read his equipment he the audio and video believed Dalton testified audio. When intention not to have it was never his working and
was any explanation he had for hearing whether suppression asked at the malfunctioned, explained Dalton recorder audio why the may may microphone have dead or the microphone been battery in his channel. that he had wrong Dalton testified to the turned have been warning the Miranda and Gittens’ getting both every intention Dalton stated that the tape with audio and video. on statement he was because he believed not obtain written waiver reason he did rights, if he had known the reading of Gittens’ recording was malfunctioning, he have obtained a written waiver. would audio was voluntarily him out to testified that Gittens followed further car, gave any indication he did not want that Gittens never patrol Dalton, that Gittens never availed himself of his Miranda to talk to any there was never indication that his statement was and that rights, voluntary. than anything other present that he when Dalton advised Dyken testified was Van Dyken him. confirmed that rights his and interviewed Van
Gittens of rights and that his Miranda card and read Gittens his Dalton took out affirmatively that he understood his and was replied Dyken process to Dalton. Van indicated that the was willing to talk he not “by Dyken the book.”Van further remarked that was very much it intention had malfunctioned and that was also his aware the audio warning any subsequent statement be recorded. that the Dalton, Gittens, testimony Dyken, from Van hearing After custody found that and that was Gittens was District there no indication of The court further found that Mirandized. impaired found that Gittens was not inducement. court coercion or voluntarily.2 making findings, In these and that he waived any findings written of fact with the District Court did not enter note that We Rather, simply refers suppression the court’s written order Stoumbaugh, respect to “the reasons stated motion. Gitten’s MT 105, 337 on the record.” findings rendering of fact and that “a district court’s we observed easily inadequate. quite Without careful bench can be law from the conclusions of for a decision issued which is insufficient drafting, appellate district courts be overlooked and issues can urged Stoumbaugh, review, resulting therefore in remand.” We by way regarding suppression legal of a factual and issues “to resolve Stoumbaugh, again here. ¶ 31. We do so order.” written
the court found the officers’ testimony credible, to be whereas it found Gittens’ testimony not to be credible. function,
It is not this Court’s on appeal, reweigh conflicting evidence or substitute our evaluation of the evidence for that of the district court. We defer to the district court in cases involving conflicting testimony recognize because we that the court had the *9 benefit of observing the demeanor of witnesses and rendering a credibility determination of the of those witnesses. Bieber,
State v. 309, 23, 170 P.3d Accordingly, we defer to the District Court’s determination that Dalton’s Dyken’s and Van testimony was more credible than Gittens’ testimony. Gittens Grey relies on in making argument his that the District
Court
denying
erred in
his
suppress; however,
motion to
the facts in
Grey can
distinguished
be
present
from those
Grey,
here. In
we
concluded that
the police gave mere lip service to the Miranda
requirements. Grey,
that Gittens claimed was inadmissible other evidence of 404(b)? wrongs, acts under M. R. Evid. During trial, following exchange occurred between
prosecutor and Dalton:
Q. . . Okay. Dalton, Dalton, [sic] . Deputies Deputy former again, did the you defendant answer as to where the came from?
A. Yes.
Q. And what his response? *10 A. purchased That he it from from person out of town. Q. Okay. you Did him if he marijuana? ask sold the Yes, A. I did.
Q. Why? Why you did ask that question? scale, A. indicated, Because of the the all the baggies, large marijuana there, baggies, amount of all the the scale being indicated to me that it was for resale. packaged Q. Okay. again your training? And this is from A. That’s correct.
Q. you quantity? Did ask him how he could the afford Yes, A. I did.
Q. What response? was his
A. He did respond. not
Q. Okay. him with you quantity? Did ask what he did that gave A. it it people. Yes. He said he to He traded for stuff. And personally. used it for he himself
Q. Okay. it to gave people. explain gives So he Did he how he toit them?
A. He the let party just said that he’d throw a at house and house, or trade people marijuana just smoke there would for, again, the He didn’t elaborate what the stuff stuff. gave away. he traded it was. But it or dire, testimony to to exclude this on the Prior voir Gittens moved 404(b). it M. R. District denied his ground violated Evid. motion, reasoning [the that statement that “traded addition, marijuana] part for stuff’ “a of this transaction.” In immediately foregoing to objection prior Gittens renewed his testimony Dalton, objection. by and the court overruled the 404(b) R.M. Evid. states: crimes, admissible wrongs, other or acts is not
Evidence of in prove person character of a in order show action however, other may, It be admissible for conformity therewith. intent, motive, purposes, opportunity, as of proof such or or absence of mistake preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, accident. Matt, (1991), modified v. we rule, Just, first established in State crimes, wrongs or
(1979), determining admissibility for other of 404(b). Rule the Modified Just acts under Rule The four elements of are:
(1) crimes, or wrongs must be similar. The other acts (2) crimes, wrongs or must not remote The other acts be time.
(3) not crimes, wrongs or acts is The evidence of other prove the character order to show person admissible character; may admissible conformity he acted in with such be intent, motive, proof opportunity, such as purposes, for other or or absence of mistake preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, accident.
(4) if its relevant, may be excluded Although evidence danger of substantially outweighed value is probative issues, jury, misleading prejudice, unfair confusion delay, time, needless waste of considerations undue evidence. presentation of cumulative Matt, 814 P.2d at Rule incorporates in Matt the Modified Just We observed *11 404(b) and, therefore, eliminated in Rule purposes described
various if it a common only is admissible shows the limitation that evidence 142, 56. Matt, 249 814 P.2d at scheme, plan system. Mont. or limiting addition, Rule includes the noted that the Modified Just we
463 Matt, forth in Evid. 142, factors set M. R. 403. 814 P.2d Finally, safeguard “[a]s at 56. of other require we that evidence not be received unless may proper crimes notice has been provided the defendant of the State’s intent to use such evidence and the the for the purpose has indicated which evidence will be introduced.” Bieber, 56. ¶ Gittens contends that statements did concerning what he with
the crimes, constituted evidence other or wrongs, acts 404(b) pursuant M. R. statements, therefore, Evid. and that the were inadmissible under M. R. 404(b), they Evid. since meet did not requirements the of Modified the Just Rule. specifically, More claims that the second and fourth criteria of the Rule Modified Just addition, were not met. In Gittens contends this evidence was not specific alleged to the offense and highly prejudicial, that the State failed to him provide required notice, with and that the District him a fair deprived opportunity to have a on the hearing admissibility of testimony. argues The State that Gittens’ statements were admissible under
an exception to the Just Modified Rule for are inextricably acts that or linked inseparably charged with exception, offense. Under this admissible, evidence of such acts is notwithstanding the substantive and procedural criteria of the Modified Buck, Just Rule. See State 81, 75, 2006 MT 53, 134 ¶ P.3d 75. In State v. Lozon, 34, 26, 753, 320 we noted: 404(b) longstanding distinction exists between Rule “other
crimes” evidence and evidence of a defendant’s which misconduct inseparably is alleged related to the criminal act. Where evidence at not wholly independent issue is or unrelated to the offense, it charged not “other crimes” evidence and the prosecution required is not to comply with the notice requirements Just Matt.
Lozon, 12. (§ MCA) 26-1-103, The transaction rule is the codification of the
exception Marshall, 198, to Modified Just Rule. State v. MT 16, rule transaction act, declaration, states: “Where of a part omission forms fact, transaction which is itself the fact in dispute or evidence declaration, act, such or omission is as part evidence 26-1-103, transaction.” Section MCA. “Pursuant to the transaction rule, of, prior ‘inextricably to, acts that are explanatory linked charged are notwithstanding relating offense admissible the rules *12 ” 76). Marshall, Buck, (quoting ¶ crimes” evidence.’
“other to Dalton were State that Gittens’ statements agree with the We Rule, to the Modified Just exception under the transaction admissible of charged linked to the offense inextricably as the statements were made drugs with intent to distribute. Gittens dangerous of possession being Dalton after Mirandized. in an interview with his statements pertained specifically to questions reveals that Dalton’s transcript Dalton found in the basement. drugs drug paraphernalia the testified: the me consent to search
I him if he remembered asked if he particular, in basement, the house and the basement drugs to me about the responding if he remembered responded, were, they where he was asked him who drug paraphernalia, from, it whether or not he it, purchasing he was getting where thing. of growing, type Dalton’s Furthermore, dialogue quoted in the as reflected of quantity” to “that addressed questions specifically were had found in the basement. marijuana he and Ruiz marijuana-i.e., the Dalton cross-examination, defense counsel asked about On marijuana away, and gives trades or that he sometimes statement to the pertained specifically questions reiterated that his with the Defense counsel took issue found in the basement. marijuana away or give intention to told Dalton of his fact that Gittens never never used the word that Gittens marijuana-specifically, the trade never used the word However, Gittens simply “intent.” because surrounding on the finding, from based prevent jury does not “intent” Dalton, that intended by to circumstances testified facts and Hall, marijuana. See State to distribute (“Because (1991) subject proof, to direct it is seldom facts and the accused and the from the acts of intent must be inferred offense.”). of the circumstances Lozon, law those in Lozon. analogous here are to The facts room of the defendant’s conducted a search
enforcement officers Although Lozon, 3. methamphetamine. containing discovered a vial his, he the vial was asked whether respond when Lozon refused that he had used rights, stated, being read his later after trial, objected Lozon, At Lozon 3. prior night. methamphetamine statement, it was arguing this testimony regarding 404(b).Lozon, under M. R. Evid. other crimes evidence of inadmissible testimony and we affirmed court admitted 5, 9. The district ¶¶ admissible statement was ground Lozon’s ruling on district court’s Lozon, under transaction rule. 14. We explained: His statement to law enforcement officers that he had used methamphetamine night his room the before the search is closely charged related to the offense of possession dangerous drugs, explanatory and is surrounding circumstances offense, it knowledge because establishes his possession drugs in shortly prior his room to the early morning search. Lozon, Likewise, hand, in the case Gittens’ statement that he gives sometimes trades for “stuff’ is closelyrelated to the charged possession offense of dangerous drugs with intent explanatory distribute and is of the circumstances surrounding this offense. In light of the evidence found the officers in the house-the
large quantity marijuana, the numerous items related to the *13 drugs, distribution of and the paraphernalia for ingesting drugs-we conclude that Gittens’ regarding statements giving away trading were inextricably linked to the charged offense of possession dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. We hold
¶41 that the District correctly interpreted applied the transaction rule admitting in the statements Gittens made to Deputy Dalton.
CONCLUSION Based on all of the evidence, ¶42 available the District Court did not err concluding that the State met showing its burden of that the Miranda were read to Gittens voluntarily, and that he knowingly, and intelligently Furthermore, waived them. the District Court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Gittens’ statements that gives he trades or away marijuana, as the statements were admissible under the transaction rule. Affirmed. GRAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICES WARNER and MORRIS concur. RICE,
JUSTICE specially concurring. I concur with the Court’s decision affirming the District Court. However, disagree I with the Court’s furtherance of the statement Grey that, made in under circumstances, certain an testimony officer’s that given were and that a defendant waived those rights “will be viewed with distrust” determining this Court in voluntariness of the waiver. “Voluntariness depends upon totality of the circumstances.” 294, 20, 142 851, Jones, 2006 MT ¶ ¶ 15, 298, 15, 150, (citing Reavley, State v. 2003 MT ¶ ¶
20 15). Further, 270, explained “specific we have that given has ‘is question voluntary of whether a defendant confession that is largely a factual determination within discretion Jones, Hill, (citing court.’” State v. district 37). be, 415, 37, 14 P.3d This is as it should as it falls credibility testimony courts to hear the and to make district testimony. determinations about However, Grey, this Court took the district court’s function to circumstance,” that, fail, in by holding when officers a “controlled
itself
their
rights,
a record of the
and waiver of Miranda
preserve
Grey,
be “viewed with
testimony about the situation would
distrust.”
This
distrust flies
presumption