State v. Needham

fully requirements complied has with forth this court’s

for reinstatement set 16, 1992; July

order of

WHEREAS, Lawyers Pro- of Office has filed this Responsibility

fessional with R. certifying Todd

court an affidavit

Haugan complied require- has with forth in this

ments reinstatement set 1992; 16, July

court’s order THEREFORE,

NOW, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED, Haugan R. is reinstated to

1.That Todd practice of law in the State Minneso- subject August to his

ta effective professional completion

successful

responsibility portion of the multistate bar by July

examination Minnesota, Petitioner,

STATE

Appellant, NEEDHAM, Gregory

Richard

Respondent.

No. C2-91-2506.

Supreme of Minnesota. Court

Aug. 28, 1992. III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty. H. St.

Hubert Paul, Graham, Wing Remington Crow Sausen, County Atty., and John J. p.m., Asst. at 7:30 the officer who was with Brainerd, County Atty., appellant. defendant “read” defendant “the Miranda warning.” The defendant said he wanted Stuart, M. State Public Defender to talk employer with his attorney and an Middlebrook, Cathryn and Asst. State Pub- before he talked further. The officer re- Defender, Minneapolis, respondent. lic spected question this and did not the defen-

dant.

On way station, to the police defendant volunteered possi- that he would KEITH, Chief Justice. bly speak police to the attorney without an charged The defendant is with arson. but that he wanted to talk employ- with his pretrial appeal issue on this state’s er. The officer tried but failed to contact whether the justified trial court was in employer. The defendant then said he suppressing defendant’s pursu- confession would talking talk without employer. to his Arizona, ant to Miranda v. 384 U.S. again The officer read the “Miranda warn- (1966). 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ing” to proceeded the defendant and trial court suppression reasoned that was taped take a statement from the defendant required state, although because the elicit- being after first careful to make a record ing testimony at the omnibus that that the defendant did not want to talk warning” a “Miranda was read to the de- with an attorney employer or his before ques- fendant before the defendant was talking police. with the tioned, specific failed testimony to elicit as At the start of hearing, warning. to the contents of the The court defendant’s stated the issue for appeals affirmed. We reverse the deci- the omnibus court as follows: “Your Hon- appeals, sion of the court of vacate the or, the issue is the—are the statements in order, suppression and remand to the dis- this case that were taken from Mr. Need- trict court for a omnibus ham at a time that he in custody, was and establish, at which the state will be free to challenge we do can, of these state- if warning given it defendant by ments.” Asked the trial court if he adequate. was issue, prosecutor understood the re- fire, which caused an estimated $1 plied thought that he so. in damages building million ato in Brain- interrogating erd that housed several officer and the businesses and a defen- units, number of residential dant then testified. rental was set The officer testified 21,1991. early on suspicion October Police that he “read the warning” Miranda twice, quickly focused on hospital who was an defendant once at the employee building. station, of the owner of the police once at the and that he had questioned Police noncustodially defendant transcript obtained a waiver. The at 10:00 a.m. on the 21st. taped The defendant copies police statement and denied involvement in reports the crime. At 3:00 were offered and admitted evi- p.m. day, police that met point defendant at his dence. At one prosecutor when the place employment and asked him to ac- wanted transcript, to read from the which company voluntarily them police typed to the sta- containing on a form the full text tion. When defendant had a “hives” or warning, Miranda the trial court station, stress attack at the he was taken ruled that “speaks the document for it- by police hospital, where he typed was self.” In the statement hospital, treated. At agreed expressly asked if he had been polygraph to submit to a Af- warning” examination. “read the Miranda from “a examination, ter the completed printed it, which was if card” he understood if it Crisler, 1. In State v. Hennepin County Attorney George 672 & n. 2 former Scott, M. (Minn. 1989), police we stated that officers in need not fear a later determination warning given Minnesota who read a standard form Miranda this court that the was inade- warning, prepared by quate misleading. such as the standard one rights given; warning of was explained him. The defendant had been waiver; indicating he did defen- adequate; was there a replied in affirmative right everything. or his right understood invoke his to silence dant latter, counsel, and, if the the state- was testimony at the omnibus The officer’s taken in of Edwards or did ment violation possible Edwards hearing focused on the with the defendant initiate further contact Arizona, 451 U.S. Edwards v. issue [see police permitting questioning; and was the 482-87, 1880, 1883-86, 477, 68 101 S.Ct. voluntary coerced? confession (1981) relating to defendant’s 378 L.Ed.2d ] attorney, an request speak to initial with in 1 LaFave and J. As stated W. telling police to by followed that he wanted 10.1(b) Israel, Procedure Criminal § having talked questions answer without (1984), pretrial suppress should a motion to by attorney. with an Cross-examination particularity as is specify, with as much focused on the medicine defense counsel circumstances, the reasonable under the took, re- on initial defendant’s suppression in order grounds advanced for counsel, quest on officer’s fail- the give notice as to the state as much advance they an once ar- ure contact the contentions it must be possible as to (because, as officer at the station the rived hearing. prepared to meet at the testified, he did not the defendant said attorney). an want at practice, In the defense counsel the hearing often outset of an omnibus makes testimony, in his direct issues, general a rather statement of the as reading he officer said that recalled the If defense counsel did here. defense coun- rights. his of him The focus defendant’s says, example, sel that the defendant testimony was on the medication which in challenging the the con- manner which that, feel his claim weary made him on obtained, practice many in fession was the fact, he talk without in he never said would prosecutor call courts is to have the an attorney present. an testify the surround- officer to about facts parties file were directed and did ing taking the Defense the of statement. hearing on simultaneous omnibus briefs counsel, cross-examination, on then focuses 2, apparently December state relating precise on the facts to the issues thought on the issues were those which promise of suc- which seem show some questioning the defense counsel’s at omni- redirect, prosecutor, typically cess. The on hearing custody, Ed- bus had focused: questions expand which asks on wards, and the effect medication. precise the facts related to these issues. raised, first time in Defense counsel for the brief, question of his short letter case, it In this was not clear to the warning adequate an had whether been prosecutor contending that the defense was officer, given, pointing to the fact that the warning given that the defen admittedly testimony, not for the in his did relate incomplete. inadequate or In dant was warning he off the read record what deed, hearing the focus of the omnibus was actually said. The trial court ruled card relating on other issues except every on against the defense issue prosecutor It until confession. was not one, a ruling this that without such testi- hearing the defendant’s omnibus received record, on the the state monial recitation brief, simultaneously filed with the state’s proving by met of a had not its burden brief, prosecutor that the could know that preponderance of the evidence that the con- making the defense was an issue of the validly fession was obtained. given adequacy warning of defendant. appeals of affirmed. court Arguably, point prosecutor at reopen a motion to specific should have filed issues are numerous There present hearing in order evi omnibus suppression that can raised at a be confessions, Nonetheless, given concerning dence on this issue. the admission of case, unique following: circumstances this we including the was the reopening interrogation; a a custody; was there was conclude that in Andrews, 723, justified give in order to State 388 N.W.2d opportunity (Minn.1986) Miranda, full to meet its (quoting state a and fair 384 U.S. at proving preponderance a fair burden of 1628); at see State v. also the Miranda evidence that Fossen, 312 Minn. given adequate and that a valid was waiver (1977) (state carries the burden estab- was obtained. lishing preponderance aby evidence requisite warnings adminis- were Reversed and remanded for a tered). hearing. omnibus warnings given These need not TOMUANOVICH, J., an dissents with exact form set out in the Miranda decision. WAHL,

opinion, joined by J. To satisfy scrutiny, po constitutional the TOMUANOVICH, (dissenting). Justice merely lice need “adequately to and effec respectfully I dissent. I would affirm tively” suspect inform a of his Miranda that appeals’ the court of decision and hold Miranda, rights. 384 U.S. at 86 S.Ct. the state notice of the defense’s had fair 1624; at Prystock, see also v. California challenge adequacy of the Miranda 355, 359, 2806, 2809, 453 U.S. 69 warning given to the defendant. The ma- (1981) (Miranda L.Ed.2d 696 does not re jority’s unprecedented reopen decision to quire any “talismanic to incantation” satis hearing the omnibus so that the state can strictures); fy Crisler, its N.W.2d 438 at carry have a to second chance its burden (the 672 set warnings court out the four proof is unwarranted. required by that if Miranda and stated principle function of the used, equivalent” those “their or are the required by the Miranda decision is to police not fear a need later determination ensure is aware or her suspect that a of his warnings inadequate). that the were Al Merrill, rights. constitutional State v. 274 though interrogating the officer testified at (Minn.1978). Consequent- N.W.2d 106 hearing that he read the Mi ly, may police before the effect a custodial twice, warning to the randa the interrogation, apprise suspect they must a record not disclose the does what officer following: complete a considered and suitable Mi

(1) right has the suspect warning. most, to remain randa At the record indi silent; the cates that discussed defen right to is not dant’s counsel. This suffi (2) Any made statements can and will be satisfy procedural safeguards cient to the law; against suspect used in a court of guaranteed by Miranda. (3) has suspect right to talk to attorney being questioned an to before and does majority disagree not that the present during question- have the carry proof; to state failed its burden of ing by police; and rather, majority argues that the omni- bus should because be (4) If is suspect unable to afford the state did not have of the de- notice one will attorney, appointed hire an be challenge fense’s intent whether ade- him or her without cost. warnings quate given. were I believe the Arizona, 436, 479, 86 Miranda v. U.S. First, state had notice for two reasons. 1602, 1630, (1966); S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 defense counsel stated that he was chal- Crisler, State lenging from statements (Minn.1989). In made order statements put This the defendant. alone should have during interroga- suspect a a custodial Second, notice. Miranda state on admissible, prove tion to state must requires police “adequate- that the decision suspect properly that the “was informed of effectively” suspect of his ly and inform a rights, constitutional has know- [his her] puts I rights. or her believe this standard ingly intelligently privilege waived the self-incrimination, adequacy notice against the state on and has made an freely voluntarily.” warning every issue case where a statements challenges obtained statements during interrogation. custodial a context, criminal

In either civil or party carry fails its burden a

when improper to take the it is for a court

proof a step reopening

remedial party opportunity to another

give such I a his or her case. believe

make system counterproductive to our

result justice.

WAHL, (dissenting). Justice Tomljanovich. join

I the dissent of Justice PIKE, al., Appellants,

Earl A. et GUNYOU, of Fi- Commissioner Minnesota, al., et nance of the State of Inc., Airlines, interven-

and Northwest

ing Respondents.

No. C2-92-734. Appeals Minnesota.

Court of

June 1992. 31, 1992. Aug.

Review Granted

Opinion Nov. 1992.* Vacated * Opinion See 1992 WL concurrence vacated Court November 1992. Editor's Note: dispositional declared to of neither nor and precedential Supreme value the Minnesota

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Needham

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Aug 28, 1992

Citation: 488 N.W.2d 294

Docket Number: C2-91-2506

Court Abbreviation: Minn.