State v. HeadrickState v. Headrick
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Wuest
acting as a Supreme Court Justice.
This is аn appeal from a judgment of conviction for burglary in the third degree, pursuant to
Appellant, Steven Allen Heаdrick (Headrick), was charged with the crime of burglary in the third degree,
Sometime during the weekend of July 8, 9, and 10, 1983, the Eаst River Legal Services Office (E.R.L.S.) in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was burglarized. Approximately $75.00 in cash was taken from the prеmises. The office is located in the same building as the Albert House Hotel. Gene Stamp (Stamp), a night clerk at the Albеrt House, testified on behalf of the State that Headrick checked into the hotel around 8:30 p.m. on July 10, 1983. Stamp testifiеd that he had seen Headrick one other time, Labor Day weekend of 1982, in the basement of the hotel, which adjоins the E.R.L.S. library. Stamp had gone to the basement, which was used for storage, and was startled to find Headrick, who said he hаd been sleeping there. Bedding was on the floor, supporting Headrick’s explanation of his presence. Hеadrick was not a registered guest at the hotel at that time.
An officer from the Sioux Falls Police Department went to E.R.L.S. on the morning of July 11, 1983. The. officer took a report of the burglary-theft and received a cash box and “Band-Aid” bрx which had contained some of the stolen money. Ray Cuccaro, an identification officer with the poliсe department, received these items as exhibits, lifting a latent fingerprint off the metal cash box. Maria Schuetts-Hеndrick-son, an analyst from the South Dakota *270 State Division, of Criminal Investigation Laboratory, testified that Headrick’s fingerрrint had appeared on the cash box.
Dennis Beck (Beck), a detective with the local police dеpartment, went to E.R.L.S. on July 11 and examined all entrances, including the basement door. Beck noticed that the frame around the basement door was partially pulled out, with scuff marks on the wood and scratch marks on the latch. Bеck noticed no other damage or signs of forced entry on any of the other doors.
Beck talked with Headriсk twice during his investigation. Beck talked with Headrick on July 12, 1983, at the Main Avenue Manor (Manor). Beck encountered Head-rick in the main lobby of the Manor and they went to Headrick’s room, where Head-rick was advised of his Miranda rights. Beck interviewеd Headrick concerning a burglary at the Good Will Industries Building in Sioux Falls, and other general matters. The E.R.L.S. burglary was not mentionеd at that time and no admissions were made by Headrick.
On July 21, 1983, Beck went to the Man- or and arrested Headrick, escorted him to the Public Safety Building where Beck advised him of his Miranda rights upon arriving at the interview room. Beck testified at trial that Heаdrick agreed to talk about the E.R.L.S. burglary, admitting that he had gone through a wooden door of the premises and had tаken money from a filing cabinet.
Headrick contends that his admission, relating to the E.R.L.S. burglary, was coerced and that bеcause such confession was not obtained after a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right against sеlf-incrimination the trial court should not have allowed it into evidence. Upon a motion to suppress the cоnfession at trial, however, the court found that Headrick’s statement concerning the E.R. L.S. burglary “was voluntary beyond a rеasonable doubt and that he waived his right beyond a reasonable doubt.” We agree.
This court has adopted the position that it must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to support the trial court’s decision. State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1980); State v. Kiehn, 86 S.D. 549, 199 N.W.2d 594 (1972); State v. Thundershield, 83 S.D. 414, 160 N.W.2d 408 (1968). The trial judge has the responsibility for making the decision as to whether or not the State has met its burden of proof and the test is in view of the totality of the circumstances. Cowell, supra; State v. Lyons, 269 N.W.2d 124 (S.D.1978); State v. Stumes, 90 S.D. 382, 241 N.W.2d 587 (1976); State v. Adkins, 88 S.D. 571, 225 N.W.2d 598 (1975). If the trial court finds that the confession was voluntary beyond a reasоnable doubt, such a finding is binding upon the reviewing court unless it is clearly erroneous. Cowell, supra; State v. Dubois, 286 N.W.2d 801 (S.D.1979); Mobridge Community Industries v. Toure, 273 N.W.2d 128 (S.D.1978); State v. Lewis, 90 S.D. 615, 244 N.W.2d 307 (1976).
Headrick contends that the trial court’s ruling concerning the voluntariness of his confession was clearly erroneous. Head-rick supports this proposition by alleging that he is of low intelligence, was drunk when the admission was made, and was coerced into making the statement by virtue of the fact that the interrogating officers offered him a “deal” if he confessed and would charge him with оther crimes if he did not confess.
We find the evidence in this case to the contrary. It is uncontradicted that Head-rick had a low intelligence quotient. The facts, however, indicate that he was not of such low intelligence that he could not understand his right against self-incrimination. Headrick was given Miranda warnings on each occasion that he spoke with Beck. Indeed, after his arrest, he agreed to talk about the E.R.L.S. burglary after he had thought about the matter. There was no testimony that Headrick was drunk, other than his own statement that he had six beers. Headrick’s testimony indicated that he was a regular drinker and that he had a tolerance for this quantity of alcohol. Furthermore, the alleged coercive element of *271 Headrick’s statement to the interrogating officers related to a “clear out,” that is, the officers’ attempt to clear up as much of the downtown district’s nonviolent criminal activity as they could. Upоn being informed of the evidence against him in the E.R.L.S. burglary, Headrick made statements as to his involvement in other burglaries in the downtown Sioux Falls area. It is clear from the evidence that these admissions were made after Headrick’s statement concerning the E.R.L.S. break-in.
We cannot say, in view of the totality of the circumstances, that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its determination that Headrick’s confession, regarding the E.R.L.S. burglary, was voluntarily and knowingly made.
Accordingly, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
All the Justices concur.