State v. Helmer

1996 SD 31 Dakota, Plaintiff of South

STATE Appellee, HELMER, Joseph Defendant

William Appellant.

No. 18858. Dakota.

Supreme Court of South

Argued 1995. Oct. 27, 1996.

Decided March Barnett, Gen., Atty. Bogue,

Mark Scott Pierre, SD, Gen., Atty. plaintiff and Asst. for appellee. Stonefield, Pennington

Michael Office of Defender, SD, County Rapid City, Public appellant. defendant and TUCKER, Judge. Circuit (Helmer) ap- Joseph William peals first-degree his conviction for murder 8, 1994, July which was and filed on entered Grosshans, before the Honorable Roland E. Circuit, County, Pennington Judicial Seventh City, Dakota. Rapid South We affirm.

FACTS morning On November City, a rural resident of Hill South Dakota, appeared what observed body laying approximately human 20 feet or edge of a Forest road. so from Service flagged deputy The resident down a sheriff and directed him to the scene. body The deputy up walked to the corpse

and observed that the was headless and handless. He called for assistance and secured the area. Several officers and proceeded gather evidence technicians investigate evidence and for the scene day. day, No- remainder next 16th, prints vember officers followed foot campsite. which led a fire trail to a down They envelopes ad- discovered bills they campsite, “Tracy” the last names Helmer entered to a with arrived dressed Elliot, Erickson and Helmer. the trailer and handed Hensen a silver case. yellow bag, He also had a investigation Further revealed gun a nine millimeter submachine extracted belonged Tracy Helmer re- who mail carry. bag handed Hensen Dakota. Later Springs, in Hot sided South meantime, retrieving Dixon the some 16th, law evening enforce- on November camp. also at the items from a tent located phone a call from William ment received why they inquiring as to were look- Helmer the three left to return to the [¶ 8] When to agreed wife. Helmer come to for his car, carrying large green bag, Helmer was a to the death of a the office discuss sheriffs coat, bag, flashlight a a and smaller a a City, bring to his man near Hill refused but axe. Dixon at the car double-bladed arrived at the sheriffs Once Helmer arrived wife. against smoking leaning it first and was a extended, office, voluntary gave state- cigarette. the trunk Hensen unlocked and been his Helmer stated he had with ment. side, leaving Helmer walked to the driver’s Draine, Mends, and Chris on Andrea Harris rear of car. Hensen Dixon at the the and 14th, and evening the of November denied “very pop loud sound.” then heard a She any knowledge of Dixon’s whereabouts or around, steps a turned took few and saw Following in in- his death. the involvement standing Helmer behind the car and Dixon terview, agreed accompany Helmer to other coming from lying ground on with blood the campsite. the law officers to enforcement something threw his head. Helmer the During trip campsite, to the [¶ 5] Hensen, nothing “You know trunk and told Rapid City located law Harris enforcement nothing you your you and and and saw Draine, who that Helmer had and denied do, your daughter you you if and pay, will evening them on the of November been with daughter next.” will be with Harris and 14th. The conversation body grabbed then Dixon’s [¶ 9] Helmer Helmer’s, friend of Draine revealed another dragged it off across and the ankles and (Hensen). Law a Hensen enforce- Joahn car, grabbed to road. He returned and ment tracked down Hensen asked her axe, body moved to and it walked back in Dixon’s about Helmer’s involvement death. again approximately so 50 feet from it was initially any knowledge denied of Hensen edge Hensen of the road. Helmer told subject, subsequently she revealed that but it him. get flashlight a and hold towards She murder. she had witnessed the it, part made but begged following: August Hensen told the [¶ 6] his Hensen did repeated Helmer order. as Helmer while she Hensen first met told, away, she was turned looked working City. in Hill for his mother thumps. Hensen repeated heai’d When Hensen met Hel- Later October back, Dixon’s looked she could see that head victim, Tracy Randy Dix- and the mer’s wife chopped Helmer had been off. hands (Dixon). Dixon Dako- on had come South car, some then to the retrieved returned ta wife from Arizona. with Helmer his body. walked back to the plastic bags, and friends, eventually good four became bag, in a hands in placed head He staying at with all four sometimes Hensen’s placed into the ear. bag and both another City. Rapid house body to retrieve He then returned 13th, Dix- November Helmer and [¶ 7] On axe, wiped which he Dixon’s wallet and overnight Hensen’s house. At stayed on ground. off approximately p.m. on 4:00 or 5:00 November get into ordered Hensen 14th, driving out his insisted on Lake Road. belong- the car and drove Sheridan personal retrieve campsite to some area gravel over on a near pulled He the car ings. and Dixon to He asked both Hensen overlook, lights car and its steep turned the them to the accompany him. Hensen drove off, keys the car. and exited Road and Mar- removed of China Gulch intersection up the to the car Road, opened back door parked car Helmer where she shall Gulch back bags. He walked campsite. removed three walked to the When and all car, refusing err in couple knelt II. Did trial court behind the down suppress Helmer’s statements made bags at a then threw one seconds and Tracy . to Officer Wiest? edge time of the overlook. over the failing to III. Did the trial court err in attempt- car and Helmer entered the jury on the instruct defense rings give one Dixon’s ed to Hensen insanity? of the He she into the backseat car. threw up pick daugh- Hensen her refused to take DECISION babysitter, driving instead them ter from the deny- I. Did trial court err in house, house. Hensen to Hensen’s At challenging ing Helmer’s motion and vomited. Hel- went into the bathroom up jury panel? of the make mer entered the bathroom washed bathroom, Upon hands. her exit from jury panel Helmer that the [¶ asserts 18] requested go pick up again Hensen her was drawn violation of his constitutional daughter again Helmer re- from sitter. statutory right jury and to a selected to a fused so and drove them bar called do a fair com- random from cross-section of the Oyster Pub. munity. 1994, March trial court [¶ 19] On 7th of Upon Oyster them at the arrival parties jury pool that the informed Pub, oysters and a Helmer ordered beer for special pan- trial of a would consist himself and a soda for Hensen. Helmer trial, specifically el as drawn for his as well chatting remained at the bar with the bar- already regular panel June drawn for lottery played tender and Hensen machines Pennington County. held cases After on other side the room. Helmer reviewing jury panels May, While Hel- oysters, again requested finished his Hensen the lists mer’s counsel noticed contained go pick up daughter. agreed her Helmer jurors potential who lived on the number proceeded and to drive to the and them sitter challenged panel. same streets. Helmer then back to Hensen’s house. evidentiary The trial court conducted house, [¶ 13] At Hensen and her jury hearing panel on the selection of the and daughter into and on went the bedroom laid challenge panel. The denied Helmer’s fully During time, the bed clothed. this Hen- specifically court found that the random se- open Helmer close the sen heard outside process substantially as utilized com- lection eventually door more than once. Helmer plied with the state’s statutes and therefore came and laid down on the bed next jury challenge process of the selection requested sex Hensen and to have with her. was not warranted. Hensen, evening, Later that Helmer told “I Sixth Amendment to perfect crime.” have committed requires that a United Stated Constitution day next [¶ 14] The Helmer removed jury at random from a fair cross- be selected plates license vehicle told Hensen’s community. Leap section of the St. Cloud v. report them her stolen. ley, 118, (S.D.1994); v. 521 N.W.2d 125 State McDowell, 661, (S.D.1986); 391 664 N.W.2d approximately At 3:00 a.m. No- on Hall, (S.D. 308, State 272 N.W.2d 17th, vember Helmer and the law enforce- 1978). SDCL 16-13-10.1: Under their ment officers returned from visit to policy It Dako- is the of the State of South campsite. placed Helmer cus- was then into litigants ta all in the this courts of tody morning arrested later that for the by jury state entitled to trial shall have the Randy murder of Dixon. juries grand petit right to selected following 16] Helmer asserts the issues random from fair cross-section of appeal: county community, district or where the court convenes.... denying the trial err in I.Did court successfully challenge challenge To Helmer’s motion panel, challenging party prej- must jury panels? show Helmer made to an incriminating statement right. deprivation of a substantial udice early morning custody & Transmis Electric Generation while in Nebraska officer 238, Markus, 90 S.D. Co-op., Inc. v. agree, sion 17th. but rule of November We hours (S.D.1976)(citing State N.W.2d given harmless error that the error was (S.D.1930)); Smith, 57 S.D. N.W. in the record. overwhelming evidence Christians, 381 N.W.2d State v. 17, Helmer and law November [¶ 26] On (S.D.1986); Slaughter, 66 S.D. Broderson v. from the officers returned enforcement (S.D.1938). The burden is N.W. 470 city approximately 3:00 campsite near Hill prima facie to make a upon the defendant requirement City inter- Rapid a.m. Police detectives showing that the cross-sectional Two Arguello, 502 met. State v. has not been of the detective’s of- one viewed Lohnes, (S.D.1993); State a.m., started the fices. At 3:11 the detectives (S.D.1988) (citing Duren The de- interview of Helmer. first custodial 664, 58 99 S.Ct. 439 U.S. Missouri warnings given the Miranda fendant was Louisiana, (1979); Taylor v. L.Ed.2d 579 However, understood. he claimed he 42 L.Ed.2d 690 419 U.S. he wanted to talk upon being asked whether (1975)). “No,” officers, said that he to the and was tired. prima facie chal- to talk to his wife establish a wanted [¶ To 22J (1) minutes, must show that: re- lenge, a defendant five Helmer During the next group in the group excluded is a “distinct” the officers and invoked his speak fused to to (2) of this community; representation At six different times. right to remain silent reasonable jury pools in is not fair and group a.m., detectives turned off 3:16 one of the ' persons in the number of such in relation to momentarily left the room. tape and (3) underrepresen- community; and this a.m., the detective returned At 3:17 [¶ 27] systematic exclusion tation is due to on, room, tape re- turned the back process. to the jury selection group from the Lohnes, 553; had not at that his alibi Arguello, 502 N.W.2d vealed to Helmer Duren, (citing 439 U.S. at 83-4 that Joahn Hensen checked out and stated Fouche, 668; v. Turner 99 S.Ct. happened. story what had had told 24 L.Ed.2d 567 U.S. 90 S.Ct. right to remain again invoked Helmer (1970)). right talk “I don’t wanna replying, silent Nonetheless, the detectives continued now.” his bur Helmer failed to meet [¶ 23] Again, the defendant. their interview with group showing in there was a “distinct” den room, the other but one detective left County underrepre was Pennington in interview. Helmer continued the detective process. Hel- selection sented statements, incriminating but at oral made several necessarily admitted counsel mer’s a.m. discriminatory tape be shut off 3:32 no for the to arguments that there was asked detectives, during the protected time, class had re- of a one elimination At this both un- showing process. interview, Absent selection left the room during this entered group derrepresentation of a distinct pur- for the sole entered and Officer Wiest panel challenge to the community, Helmer’s booking prep- watching Helmer while pose of declines to address This court fails. being made. were arations ran process used was of whether issue immediately, Helmer asked Almost process if met in nature or such dom why Helmer was there. if knew Wiest Wiest applicable state required specifications as knowledge, had some replied that he Wiest statutes. any the need to know feel but that didn’t err in refus- II. Did the trial court suggested that Helmer it. more about Wiest suppress ing Helmer’s statements to At which the Lord. matter with discuss the Tracy made to officer Wiest? crazy, “Maybe I’m but replied, point Helmer forgive for what can me know if God I don’t claims that the next The defendant that he was told Helmer I’ve done.” Wiest failing suppress an to court erred trial The wrongs. suppression test the trial court’s order. forgives people for their God sure up inquiry this Court is then limited look at Wiest proceeded Helmer were this asked God statements Wiest say, “I down before whether Helmer’s knelt voluntarily forgive freely life I about to me for the made. take.” preceding 32] When confessions [¶ to the of the detectives returned 29] One inadmissible, subsequent are or statements booking proce- to take Helmer for room automatically are not inadmissi statements area, way booking their dures. On ble, they South suspect. but are State of detective, get “What can I Helmer asked the (8th Long, Cir. Dakota 465 F.2d for this crime?” 1972). facts, “If from the it is found that 17th, Helmer 30] Later on November closely as to are related two statements so appear Magistrate Court. scheduled to second, are interven taint the and there no police approximately p.m., a different At 3:00 taint, the purge sufficient to events jail to Hel- appeared at the interview officer Id. at also inadmissible.” second must his Mi- mer. After he had read Helmer States, 375 (citing Evans United 70-71 if he this officer asked Helmer rights, randa (8th Cir.1967)). The connec F.2d replied us talk to now?” wished “to improper interrogation tion between questions the offi- depended that it what final must be so incriminating statement going response, to ask him. cer dissipate the taint. Stumes attenuated as “yes” or “no” requested officer answer (8th Solent, F.2d asked, you “Do to talk to me now again wish Cir.1982) States, Wong Sun United answered, “Nothing personal Bill?” Helmer 9 L.Ed.2d 371 U.S. really.” officer but not continued (1963)). suppressing state The reasons for Helmer, talk agreed interview involuntary follow earlier ments which him, talk to his wife first. with if he could sup parallels reason for the statement the phone got wife on the The officer original People v. pression the statement. of momentarily spoke her the and defendant 635, 330, Badgett, Cal.Rptr.2d 41 10 Cal.4th they Helmer then before were disconnected. 877, (1995)(citing P.2d v. Tex 895 886 Clewis finally and con- agreed to talk to the officer as, 707, 1338, 87 L.Ed.2d 386 U.S. S.Ct. 18 crime. fessed the (1967)). be 423 The second statement should un suppressed as “it is in itself involuntary warnings, if the After Miranda the taint of the first has been attenuated less suspect speak and invokes does not wish by passage of or reasons.” the time other speak, interrogation must right not to all Id. Arizona, 477, v. 451 cease. Edwards U.S. 481-2, 1883, 1880, 68 378 L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. previously This has ad Court 33] (1981). made pertained to the statements As analyzed be dressed what factors must interviews, court during formal the trial removed if the taint has been determine voluntary been a ruled that there had not divulged law when to other statements are any knowing waiver of of Helmer’s and present not at the enforcement who were rights statements under Miranda factors of unlawful Those time conduct. of law enforce were obtained as “a result place a from the include removal time of Mr. overcoming ment’s action free will original setting, adequate an advisement of found that all of Helmer.” The trial court rights, constitutional the accused’s 17, on November Helmer’s statements made rights. those Satter opportunity to exercise Wiest, except made to were obtained those (S.D.1990)(cit Solem, 762, N.W.2d 768 v. 458 sufficiently taint involuntarily and had been States, 436, v. United 384 U.S. Westover war by prior actions to ed law enforcement’s (1966)). 1602, 16 694 L.Ed.2d 86 S.Ct. court re suppression. rant them The trial case, necessary at In this made suppress fused to the statements simply present not tenuating did factors were premise that Wiest Wiest based on interrogation. earlier purge with the taint solicit initiate the conversation not or in the with Wiest occurred appeal not con- The conversation Helmer. On the State does 477 interroga- examining the admission of the unlawful exact room as same evidence, appellate court subject erroneous must exact tion. It concerned the same case determine the defendant’s was whether interrogation. a matter There was as the by prejudiced v. the admission. State Schus in the presence constant of law enforcement ter, (S.D.1993). Preju 502 570 N.W.2d importantly, the state- Perhaps room. most shown, if only dicial error can deletion ments within a few minutes after were made the erroneous evidence would cause re Finally, was no illegal interview. there change. (citing sult of the Id. at 570 trial to warning intervening Miranda and waiver Thunder, State v. Blue 618- rights given. those (S.D.1991) California, (citing Chapman 19 v. agree with the trial [¶ We cannot 35] L.Ed.2d 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. that sufficient attenuation court’s conclusion (1967))). The a defendant’s violation of con change atmosphere existed due to right may constitute harmless er stitutional relationship and the between Helmer reversal, if require ror and therefore not this only divergent Wiest. factor between beyond can a reasonable doubt Court declare police was that different two situations that the was erroneous admission harmless presence officer defendant. the verdict and did contribute to involuntary original confession is “Where an (citing State was obtained. Id. at 570 v. means, Michalek, (S.D.1987)). by improper subsequent or secured N.W.2d crime, though inquire made it confessions of same must as to whether is clear We persons beyond than those to that other whom reasonable doubt made, guilty original are evi- would have returned a verdict absent inadmissible as dence, time, lapse the admission Helmer’s statements Wi appears it unless otherwise, est. Id. at United States Has or the influence which induced the 510-11, ting, 461 U.S. S.Ct. original had been confession removed (1983)). 1981,76 also United L.Ed.2d 96 See confessing longer no party dominat- Jones, Whiteman, 16 F.3d States ed influence.” State such (8thCir.1994) Fulminante, (N.D.1954). (citing Arizona do not We 1246, 1265, 279, 310, 499 U.S. presence find of a law different (1991)). L.Ed.2d 302 adequate officer was to substan- enforcement tially setting’s change atmosphere may be in Premeditation of domination that had erase the influence sur ferred from facts and circumstances the change earlier. of present been minutes The Corder, rounding the 460 murder. State alone, officers, standing does not create an 733, (S.D.1990)(citing State v. N.W.2d 739 purge to the attenuating factor sufficient (S.D.1980)). Kost, 290 486 The N.W.2d preceding conduct. taint of the lawless significant to considered deter factors be Thus, that Helmer’s this Court concludes mining premeditation the use of a include: freely were not statements to Wiest deadly weapon, the manner and lethal or voluntarily made. killing, the the defendant’s conduct nature of murder, and the the deter before after asserts, if the [¶ The State statements 36] provo of presence mination of or absence the inadmissible, to are such Helmer made Wiest Marshall, Id. at State cation. 570 harmless, an an as abundance error would be (S.D.1978); State v. 264 916 N.W.2d sup- at presented trial of other evidence (S.D.1980)). Feuillerat, N.W.2d claims ported jury’s verdict. Helmer the only to were the presented that the statements Wiest at tri 39] evidence The provided gun premeditation single or crucial a of from evidence al revealed Dixon died support otherwise limited evi- of the head to what was wound to left side shot the nine premeditation. weapon Without those murder was a millimeter dence of the jury gun the defendant. claims could owned statements Helmer submachine Additionally, prior to and actions have that the homicide occurred Helmer’s found following shooting actions of constitute provoca- as the result of passion heat of or initiated and direct- premeditation. Helmer tion. (S.D.1987)(citing ford, knew 416 N.W.2d trip campsite. He ed the (S.D. Esslinger, Hel- and secluded. State 357 N.W.2d campsite was isolated 1984)). However, supports the along, and the items Hel- if no evidence mer invited Dixon defense, theory camper (flashlight, offered of the a court is then from the mer retrieved sacks) axe, required act on matter. gun, facilitated either the of not instruct State Jenner, disposal or of evidence from the 451 N.W.2d murder (S.D.1990)(citingWeatherford, 416 N.W.2d at murder. Helmer’s efforts conceal the Dixon; 55; Hoadley, identity dragging of such as State v. 319 N.W.2d (S.D.1982); Johnson, road, cutting off State v. 81 S.D. corpse off the the head and (S.D.1965)). hands, bags placing the head and hands 139 N.W.2d subsequently off cliff on which he threw a legal insanity The of [¶43] definition Road, strongly all Sheridan Lake bolster 22-1-2(20) is at South Dakota found SDCL pre- actions conclusion that Helmer’s were “ ‘Insanity,’ which as con- reads follows: calculat- meditated and are demonstrative of partially person temporarily or dition of attempts or ed deliberation. conceal reason, proof deprived upon of that at the find- dispose support implicit of an evidence committing charged against time of the act Feuillerat, premeditation. ing of him, incapable knowing wrong- its Further, actions N.W.2d 331. Helmer’s fulness, abnormality including but dismemberment, the murder and after only repeated or manifested be unlawful anti- Hensen, na- his immediate threat amiable social For the trial court behavior.” bar, request sex oyster at an for ture required jury to instruct the on the issue of Hensen, committing his comment on insanity, presented evidence at trial would perfect and the removal of the crime support have had to some fashion the vehicle, plates do not license from Hensen’s theory incapable recog- that Helmer theory killing that support a nizing wrong time his acts were at the of the pas- provocation or to heat of result of due Jenner, at 721. murder. Marshall, Final- 916. sion. ly, testimony presented at trial demon- the. As trial noted in its court no audible sounds of strated there were insanity proposed refusal de being prior struggle fight or a shot instructions, absolutely fense “there is no fired. support that evidence on record would Therefore, in light the evidence finding that this Defendant was insane. His ” trial, beyond presented at we find a reason- say Psychol experts own sane.... he was statements to Wiest able doubt that Helmer’s Psychiatrist, ogist, Mark Dr. Perrenoud and jury’s were not essential verdict Manlove, Dr. Stephen both testified trial convicted Helmer that the would have defense. Dr. Perrenoud reiterated considering premeditated murder without report final contents stated Thus, state- while Helmer’s the statements. organic had “no clear mental inadmissible, we find ments Wiest were “good capacity disorder” and a for self-con error admission to have harmless been explicitly trol.” Dr. Manlove stated that Hel- for first and affirm the conviction of Helmer light mer “knew the difference between and degree murder. wrong” at the time of the and “sane Therefore,

offense.” since no evidence was III. court err in fail- Did trial presented supported [¶ 41] at trial which Helmer as jury on the defense instruct being incapable knowing acts were insanity? killed, wrong the time Dixon was trial jury correctly court declined instruct Finally, the tid [¶ Helmer claims 42] insanity. affirm the defense We refusing al to instruct the court erred degree of first conviction murder. insanity. A is on the defendant defense to an on his defense theo entitled instruction AMUNDSON, JJ.,

ry support [¶ 45] if there it and SABERS is evidence request v. concur. proper is made. State Weather

479 C.J., GILBERTSON, MILLER, had exercised them. The trial court [¶ J., subsequent interrogation by in result. Moore concur found the to be those and Eisenbraun in violation of TUCKER, Judge, Circuit [¶ 47] suppressed rights and Helmer’s statements J., KONENKAMP, disqualified. officers. to these two GILBERTSON, (concurring in re- Justice 52] When made his comments sult). however, Wiest, interrogation ceased and had majority I with the on Issues 48] concur Moore and Eisenbraun exited the room. had only I I on Issue and III. concur result entered, notes, majority as Wiest then II. purpose watching the sole “for noted, majority our review of As the [¶ 49] being booking preparations while were comments to Officer Helmer’s self-initiated question did not Helmer at all made.” Wiest freely they limited to whether were Wiest is away any stated he tried steer conver- voluntarily made. trial court found Nevertheless, Hel- the crime. sation about voluntary. comments to This Helmer’s al- mer initiated with Wiest conversation binding finding is on us and will not be immediately, very subject and on the most unless we determine it overturned avoid, Wiest, sought by asking “[d]o Wiest Larson, clearly State v. 512 erroneous. you I’m here know what for?” Kaiser, (S.D.1994); 740 N.W.2d State interroga- Apart from fact that 96, 101 (S.D.1993); v. Dick 504 N.W.2d State by Moore and Eisenbraun had ceased tion (S.D.1990); ey, 459 N.W.2d State questions asked him no re- and that Wiest (S.D.1990) Jenner, 710, 716 cert. 451 N.W.2d — crime, garding the initiation of Helmer’s nom., Smith, Jenner v. U.S. denied sub with Wiest evidences voluntari- conversation (1993); -, 81, 126 L.Ed.2d Jenner, we In N.W.2d at ness. (S.D.1987); Gregg, State v. 405 N.W.2d subjective state of looked to the defendant’s (S.D. Caffrey, 332 State v. N.W.2d an indication of whether her state- mind as 1983). freely voluntarily made. were ments Kaiser, 504 N.W.2d at we Therein, mind was we noted Jenner’s state of an incrimina stated determine whether “[t]o expressions” her “oral indicated made, voluntarily we ting statement “any supposition her will weakened totality circum examine the of the must Id. Had Helmer not felt free overborne.” (citing Dickey, State v. 459 N.W.2d stances.” Wiest, he would to solicit conversation from (S.D.1990)). trial court must “The compul- done so. He was under no not have totality the circum reviewed have any speak respond or to Wiest sion surrounding interrogation.” Jen stances to resist conver- manner. He did choose ner, 716; (citing N.W.2d State as earlier with with Wiest he did sation (S.D.1988); Albright, 418 N.W.2d Eisenbraun. I Moore and believe Faehnrich, 895, 898 359 N.W.2d State v. of conversation demonstrates initiation (S.D.1984). Caffrey, also 332 N.W.2d See consistent the trial court’s of mind with state 271; Lyons, State freely and finding that the statements were (S.D.1978)). “In court’s reviewing the trial voluntarily made. voluntariness, consider the findings on we light favorable to the evidence most certainly evidences Helmer’s conduct Jenner, at 716 finding.” or that his will no fear of law enforcement (S.D.1983)). Volk, 67, 70 331 N.W.2d State initially likely He to be overborne. was had committed totality bragged of the cir- to Henson that he A review of perfect crime. he learned conver- Later when here indicates Helmer’s cumstances by being sought questioning voluntary. for was Prior his wife was sation with Wiest enforcement, fleeing, rather he bra by than interrogation Moore and Eisen- law Officers police and de braun, zenly telephoned station had Miranda warn- Helmer received why looking police know were Hel- manded to stated he understood them. ings and call, Following telephone mer, fact, rights his wife. this in refused to waive these for stepped he room indicates voluntarily when into the presented himself Helmer atmosphere. interview, recognized in bring Helmer this shift police but refused for an above, when informed of his wife. As noted facts us are similar [¶ 56] The now before rights, initially he invoked Ms Miranda Therein, held Kai- to those in Kaiser. we further them. The record reflects dead,” statement, “I think mom’s ser’s years time of arrest and was old voluntary way “in no coerced” as it was justice system, stranger to the criminal no by prior volition to a made Kaiser on his own juvenile having criminal a adult both rather by law enforcement officers statement record.* Here, question. in Hel- response than to a Larson, 741, 55] In 512 N.W.2d we in re- mer did not his comments initiate acknowledged of the lawless con- “[t]he taint by question a or sponse to either statement not last Satter v. duct does forever.” Wiest. Helmer commenced conversation (S.D.1990)). Solem, 762, 768 sup- his own accord. Thus the facts here of finding a of voluntariness even more so port actually prior is When a statement in than Kaiser. coerced, passes time con- that between fessions, interroga- change place in of Fifth Amendment ... is not [¶ 57] “The tions, change identity in of and the psychological ... concerned with moral and all that interrogators bear whether emanating pressures sources to confess from the second coercion has carried over into Elstad, 470 other than official coercion.” confession. 1290, 304-05, L.Ed.2d U.S. 105 S.Ct. at 298, Elstad, 310, 105 Oregon any S.Ct. kind U.S. at 229. statements of “Volunteered (1985). 1285, 1293, 232-33 Amend- 84 L.Ed.2d are not barred the Fifth Arizona, Although lengthy time not was ment....” State Miranda v. of which passed Helmer’s statements between 384 U.S. (1966). eventually and the conver suppressed were L.Ed.2d Helmer’s com- Wiest, state religious had with and both the sation he ments to about Helmer’s be- Wiest change place, forgiveness in ments occurred the same for such a crime liefs divine major of identity outpouring of officers was event the Fifth reflect such an McGinnis, significance. I See Holland not concerned. would hold Amendment is (7th denied, Cir.1992), F.2d cert. volun- Helmer’s conversation with Wiest was sufficiently 122 L.Ed.2d tarily 506 U.S. attenuated S.Ct. made and was (1993) (finding change of a officers to remove inadmissible statements locations). change significant more than a taint in this instance. represented here change The officers identity only change a but a individual MILLER, C.J., joins special this change purpose as well. was no writing. merely

longer interrogation but was under being booking preparations watched while recorder, tape which had

were made. interrogation by Eisen-

recorded Helmer’s turned off

braun and Moore and which was running. request, longer no

at Helmer’s part investigative team

Wiest was not had, fact,

assigned fin to this case and step

ished his shift when he asked imme

and watch Helmer. Helmer’s almost with Wiest

diate initiation conversation * eluding police juvenile officer and was arrested for Helmer's record demonstrates later, damage eight property. year arrested for counts of possession intentional of stolen One times, private property, for driv- theft, and at other grand arrested intentional Helmer was cliff, vehicle, own, and for not his over a eluding damage police property, officer. adult, stealing hood ornaments. As

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Helmer

Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 27, 1996

Citation: 545 N.W.2d 471

Docket Number: None

Court Abbreviation: S.D.