837 P.2d 737 (Alaska App. 1992), A-3996, Long v. State
| Citation | 837 P.2d 737 |
| Opinion Judge | MANNHEIMER, Judge. |
| Party Name | Christopher L. LONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee. |
| Attorney | Marvin Hamilton, Asst. Public Defender, Barrow, and John B. Salemi, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant., John A. Scukanec, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Charles E. Cole, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee. Marvin Hamilton, Asst. Public Defender... |
| Judge Panel | Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and MANNHEIMER, JJ. |
| Case Date | July 31, 1992 |
| Court | Alaska Court of Appeals |
Page 737
As Revised on Grant of Rehearing Sept. 25, 1992.
Page 738
John A. Scukanec, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Charles E. Cole, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.
OPINION
Christopher L. Long was convicted of second-degree burglary, AS 11.46.310(a), following a court trial in the Barrow superior court. He appeals his conviction, asserting that his confession to this crime should have been suppressed because he was in custody and the police failed to inform him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We remand for further proceedings.
On September 15, 1990, Long and an accomplice named Herman Oyagak burglarized the Nuiqsut Trading Post, a general store in the village of Nuiqsut. Three days later, the police questioned Oyagak about the burglary; Oyagak confessed that he and Long had committed the crime. In the early afternoon of September 18, Officer Earl Bresette went to interview Long. Long confessed to having committed the burglary, and he returned the stolen money to the police.
After Long was indicted for this crime, he asked the superior court to suppress his statements to the police, asserting that these statements had been taken in violation of Miranda. The State conceded that Long had never been advised of his Miranda rights, but the State contended that no advisement of rights had been necessary because Long had not been in custody during the interrogation. Superior Court Judge Michael I. Jeffery ruled that Long had not been in custody and therefore Long's statements were admissible against him. The correctness of this ruling is the main issue on appeal.
Long was the sole witness at the suppression hearing. Because Long provided the only sworn account of the events being litigated, Judge Jeffery relied solely on Long's testimony in deciding the suppression motion. In reviewing Judge Jeffery's decision, we have done likewise.
Long was working as a carpenter at a construction site just across the street from the burglarized building. On the afternoon when Officer Bresette came to question him, Long was on the second story, putting up plywood panels. From this vantage point, Long saw Bresette approaching the work site. Long knew that Bresette was probably coming to see him, so he went downstairs to meet Bresette.
Bresette told Long that he was a suspect in a burglary and that he wished to speak to Long about this crime. Bresette then asked Long to come with him to the police
Page 739
station, which was located about one-half block down the street. Long did not want to lose any pay from his job, so he asked Bresette if the matter could wait until after work. Bresette responded that the matter was important and could not wait. Long decided to accompany the officer.
Long's precise reasons or motives for leaving work and going to the police station were hotly disputed in the superior court. On direct examination, Long described his decision this way:
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you want to leave work?
LONG: No, I didn't.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you tell the officer that you didn't want to leave work?
LONG: Yes, I did.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And what did he say to that?
LONG: He told me that it was important, and we got to go to the station, so he's got to question me. So I said, "Fine--let's go to the station." So I followed him to the station.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Did you think you had a choice?
LONG: No, not really.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: What do you think would have happened if you [had] said, "No, I'm staying at work."?
LONG: Well, I thought, "If I stay at work and he wants to question me, I might get in trouble." So I thought, "Well, if this is so important, I'll dock myself an hour for work." So I did. So I followed him ... to the station.
On cross-examination, Long described the encounter this way:
PROSECUTOR: [Y]ou say he asked you to come to the station, right?
LONG: Yes, to ask some questions.
PROSECUTOR: Right. But he actually asked you, "Will you come to the ...
LONG: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: ... station?" Okay. And, at first, you didn't want to go, right?
LONG: I said, "Can't this wait till after work?" And he goes, "No, this is important."
PROSECUTOR: He said it was important?
LONG: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: So is that why you decided to go, because you thought it was important?
LONG: Yes.
PROSECUTOR: So you decided to go because you thought it was important, not because Officer Bresette was making you go?
LONG: I decided to go because it was important and ...
PROSECUTOR: That's ...
LONG: ... I thought ...
PROSECUTOR: ... fine.
LONG: ... that I really had to go.
The parties agree that Bresette made no statement to Long indicating whether Long was under arrest or not. However, Long was neither frisked nor handcuffed. He seated himself in the front seat of Bresette's police vehicle (not in the back, where prisoners are generally transported), and they drove the short distance to the station. At the hearing, Long admitted that, if he had to be interviewed, he preferred having it done in the warmth of the police station rather than exposed to the arctic September weather at the construction site.
Long was interviewed in the main room of the Nuiqsut police station. This room is open to the public and functions as office and reception area. Bresette and the other officer participating in the interview were seated behind desks, while Long sat in a chair with the entrance to the police station at his back. The door remained unlocked, and no officer guarded the door. Long testified that he did not feel nervous or afraid, and that the police station was a "pretty laid-back place".
From the outset, Long understood that the police knew he had participated in the burglary. He gave somewhat ambiguous and conflicting testimony concerning whether he felt free to leave the interview. Long testified that he feared he would be
Page 740
in worse trouble if he did not go through with the interview. A little later in the hearing, Long testified that he thought the police might have arrested him if he had left the interview. But, on cross-examination, Long apparently conceded that he knew he could have left the police station if he had wanted to, and that he chose to stay so that he could get the matter over with.
At the end of the questioning, the police asked Long if he would return the money stolen during the burglary. Long replied, "Sure, let's go get the coins." Bresette and Long went to Long's house (which was just down the street). While Bresette waited in the "konuchuk" (a small entry porch that insulates the true front door from the outside arctic air), Long went into the house proper, retrieved the money from upstairs, and then returned to where Bresette was waiting.
Bresette and Long went back to the police station with the money. Long asked if he could leave then, but the police insisted that Long stay and watch the counting of the money so there would be no dispute later about how much was returned. After the money was counted, the police offered to drive Long back to his work site, but Long declined, preferring to walk. Long was not arrested until one month later, after the Barrow grand jury indicted him for the burglary.
Based on the foregoing testimony, Judge Jeffery concluded that Long had not been in custody when he was interviewed by the police in Nuiqsut. Judge Jeffery listened at least twice to the tape recording of that interview, and he found that the tone of the interview had been low-key, not heavy-handed. He also noted that Long had freely left to return to work when the interrogation was over. Judge Jeffery acknowledged that Long had been under some pressure to cooperate with the police by going with them and submitting to their questions. But, analogizing Long's case to the circumstances presented in Henry v. State, 621 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1980), Judge Jeffery found that the pressure Long had experienced was the normal pressure any other citizen would experience when confronted with a police officer pursuing a criminal investigation.
Judge Jeffery concluded:
Long made the call. He could have taken care of it right then, or he could have waited till later. He decided to take care of it right then. I don't think we've got anything more here than what the Henry case says [is not custody]. So, looking at the objective facts from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial