Com. v. Pitts

• Decision Date: 27 September 1999
• Citation: 740 A.2d 726
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Erik Thomas PITTS, aka Erik Laurese Moore, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

740 A.2d 726

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Erik Thomas PITTS, aka Erik Laurese Moore, Appellee.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 8, 1999.

Filed September 27, 1999.

Mary M. Killinger, Executive Asst. Dist. Atty., Norristown, for Com., appellant.

Garrett D. Page, Norristown, for appellee.

Before HUDOCK, EAKIN and MUSMANNO, JJ.

HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal the Commonwealth asserts the trial court erred in granting Appellee's motion to suppress his verbal statements given to the police and in denying the Commonwealth's motion in limine seeking to preclude Appellee from offering psychiatric evidence to support a claim of self-defense to a charge of attempted murder and related charges.¹ We affirm.

¶ 2 The standard of review employed by an appellate court when reviewing the grant of a suppression motion has been summarized by our Supreme Court:

We begin by noting that where a motion to suppress has been filed, the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence is admissible. Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(h). See Commonwealth v. Iannaccio, 505 Pa. 414, 480 A.2d 966 (1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830, 106 S.Ct. 96, 88 L.Ed.2d 78 (1985). In reviewing the ruling of a suppression court, our task is to determine whether the factual findings are supported by the record. Commonwealth v. Monarch, 510 Pa. 138, 147, 507 A.2d 74, 78 (1986). If so, we are bound by those findings. Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 533, 486 A.2d 376, 379 (1985). Where, as here, it is the Commonwealth who is appealing the decision of the suppression court, we must consider only the evidence of the defendant's witnesses and so much of the evidence for the prosecution as read in the context of the record as a whole remains uncontradicted. Commonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. at 532-33, 486 A.2d at 379; Commonwealth v. Hamlin, 503 Pa. 210, 216, 469 A.2d 137, 139 (1983).

Commonwealth v. DeWitt, 530 Pa. 299, 301-02, 608 A.2d 1030, 1031 (1992) (footnote omitted). Moreover, if the evidence when so viewed supports the factual findings of the suppression court, this Court will reverse only if there is an error in the legal conclusion drawn from those findings. Commonwealth v. Reddix, 355 Pa.Super. 514, 513 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1986).

¶ 3 Two detectives and Appellee testified at the suppression hearing about the circumstances surrounding Appellee's statements given at the police station. Based upon their testimony, the suppression court summarized the evidence as follows:

After investigating a shooting incident that occurred in Lynnewood Gardens along Penrose Avenue, on December 9, 1997, detectives from the Cheltenham Police Department and the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office secured an arrest warrant for the Appellee, Erik Pitts. On December 15, 1997, [Appellee] was directed by the police to come to the police station. [Appellee] testified:

I had been contacted by Detective Santarelli, and we talked on the phone, and he said he had some questions for me in reference to a shooting on December 9[th] ... He said it would be appreciated if I could come into the police office and give a statement... And he said, it has to be today ... And he said, basically, if you don't come in we're going to have to send somebody out to get you.

N.T. 10/6/98, p. 60-61. Upon his arrival, the police did not advise [Appellee] of their intentions to arrest him. When the detectives were available, [Appellee] was taken into a room to talk with them.

In one breath, [Appellee] told the detectives, "that he had not even been present at the apartment complex that night, and, further, that he had contacted an attorney and that the attorney advised him not to write anything or sign anything." N.T. 10/6/98, p. 9. The detectives did not advise [Appellee] of his constitutional rights, and he did not waive them. As soon as [Appellee] exercised his right to counsel and his right to remain silent, he was formally placed under arrest.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/98, at 1-2.

¶ 4 Although the suppression court summarized the testimony taken at the suppression hearing, it did not make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 323(i). As this Court has noted, however:

Both this [C]ourt and our Supreme Court have expressly disapproved of this practice and have, when necessary, vacated judgment of sentence and remanded for a new suppression hearing. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jackson, 483 Pa. 101, 394 A.2d 930 (1978); Commonwealth v. Spaulding, 275 Pa.Super. 261, 418 A.2d 712 (1980); Commonwealth v. DeSantis, 337 Pa.Super. 70, 486 A.2d 484 (1984). Where possible, however, we have looked to the trial court's resolution of post-trial motions, as well as the record, in order to determine the propriety of suppression orders in these situations. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Guinther, 290 Pa.Super. 441, 434 A.2d 834 (1981); Commonwealth v. Haynes, 395 Pa.Super. 322, 577 A.2d 564 (1990).

Commonwealth v. Gelber, 406 Pa.Super. 382, 594 A.2d 672, 678 (1991). In the present case, the suppression court was presented with credibility questions and as this is an interlocutory appeal by the Commonwealth, there are no post-trial motions to consider. However, because the suppression court has provided the basis for its suppression ruling, which discusses certain facts, we may assume the court found those to have been established by the evidence, and we need not remand the case.

¶ 5 The court below suppressed Appellee's statements after concluding that they were the result of custodial interrogation by the police where they failed to apprise him of his Miranda² rights. In determining that the statements should be suppressed, the court reasoned as follows:

In the instant case, we found that the oral statement made by the Appellee on December 15, 1997, indicating he had not been present during the Penrose Avenue incident, was the result of police conduct intended to elicit statements. At the time, the detectives had an arrest warrant for the Appellee. Yet, rather than go to the Appellee and place him under arrest, they demanded that the Appellee come in that day and talk about the Penrose Avenue incident. When the Appellee went to the police station, he was not advised of his constitutional rights nor did he waive them. At no time did the detectives communicate to the Appellee that he was free to leave. However, the detectives' words and actions were calculated to have the Appellee make incriminating statements that could be used against him.

During the pre-trial hearing, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was self-contradicting. Detective Richard L. Peffall testified that he never warned the Appellee of his Miranda rights. N.T. 10/6/98, p. 9. Yet, Detective John M. Santarelli testified that, "Detective Peffall read to [Appellee] his rights." N.T. 10/6/98, p. 43. Furthermore, there were conflicting accounts given, at the pre-trial hearing, as to the actual language and order of the words spoken by the Appellee during his oral statement.

Detective Peffall also testified that, if the Appellee had attempted to leave during their encounter on December 15, 1997, he would have been immediately arrested. N.T. 10/6/98, p. 29. The Appellee testified that he did not believe he was free to leave during the encounter. N.T. 10/6/98, p. 65. As a result, we found that during this encounter, the Appellee was in custody and being interrogated. We also found that the Appellee had not been advised of his rights nor had he waived his rights. In fact, when the Appellee asserted his right to counsel and exercised his right to remain silent, he was then formally placed under arrest. Therefore, the Appellee's oral statement to the police was suppressed.

Trial Court Opinion, 11/20/98, at 8-9.

¶ 6 "Miranda warnings are necessary only on those occasions when a suspect is undergoing actual `custodial interrogation.' " Commonwealth v. Fento, 363 Pa.Super. 488, 526 A.2d 784, 786 (1987). The test for determining whether a suspect is being subjected to custodial interrogation is whether he or she "is physically denied of his [or her] freedom of action in any significant way or is placed in a situation in which he reasonably believes that his freedom of action or movement is restricted by the interrogation." Commonwealth v. Gibson, 553 Pa. 648, 662-64, 720 A.2d 473, 480 (1998). "The standard for determining whether police have initiated a custodial interrogation or an arrest is an objective one, with due consideration given to the reasonable impression conveyed to the person interrogated rather than the strictly subjective view of the troopers or the person being seized." Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 223-27, 634 A.2d 1078, 1085-86 (1993). "Whether an encounter is deemed `custodial' must be determined with reference to the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 1086.

¶ 7 In the present case, prior to Appellee talking with the detectives at the police station, Appellee had arrived at the station to find the detectives who had contacted him unavailable. After waiting approximately twenty-five minutes, Appellee left his name with the desk sergeant and left the police station. After their return to the station, the detectives, again, contacted Appellee and told him to come to the station; Appellee complied with the request. Thus, the Commonwealth asserts that it is inconceivable that a reasonable person, who has been permitted to leave the police department earlier in the day, would assume he was under arrest when he drove himself back to the police station later in the same day. The Commonwealth further argues that the court improperly focused on the fact that the detectives readily admitted that they had secured an arrest warrant for Appellee earlier in the day and would not have permitted him to leave the department after he arrived. The Commonwealth contends that because there is no evidence of...