Commonwealth v. Lukach
Decision Date | 17 October 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 54 MAP 2017,54 MAP 2017 |
Citation | 195 A.3d 176 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. Joshua Michael LUKACH, Appellee |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
James Patrick Barker, Esq., Joshua D. Shapiro, Esq. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant.
Jeffrey M. Markosky, Esq., Law Office of Jeffrey M. Markosky, for Lukach, Joshua Michael, Appellee.
OPINION
We granted discretionary review to determine whether appellee Joshua Michael Lukach, who was subject to a custodial interrogation, clearly and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent in accordance with the rule articulated in Berghuis v. Thompkins , 560 U.S. 370, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) and, if so, whether physical evidence collected as a result of his subsequent confession was properly suppressed. We conclude appellee unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent and was then impermissibly induced into abandoning that right, rendering his confession coerced and involuntary. As such, both his confession and the physical evidence collected as a result of that confession were properly suppressed. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.
At approximately 5:00 a.m. on August 6, 2015, Richard Wojciechowsky, Chief of Police with the Pottsville Bureau of Police, received a call from another officer requesting his presence at the scene of a homicide on South 12th Street in Pottsville. N.T. 1/12/16 at 7-8. Upon arrival, Chief Wojciechowsky observed blood on the roadway and was informed officers had found the body of John Brock (victim) lying in the street in front of his home. Id. at 8. During their preliminary investigation of the homicide, officers became aware that appellee and Shavinskin Thomas (Thomas) had been involved in a prior crime at the victim's house and those individuals became persons of interest in the homicide investigation. Id. at 9. Officers reported seeing appellee and Thomas walking together on Laurel Boulevard between 6:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. on the day the victim's body was found and Chief Wojciechowsky encountered both individuals at the intersection of 12th Street and Market Street, which was directly down the road from the scene of the homicide, at around 11:00 a.m. Id. at 10.
During a discussion with Chief Wojciechowsky, appellee stated he was in the area to see what was happening. Id. at 10-11. Appellee further stated he had been with Thomas for the entire previous evening and they had visited the APlus store on Route 61 around 5:00 a.m. Id. Officers proceeded to the APlus store which provided two still photographs from their surveillance videos showing the only customers who entered the store around 5:00 a.m. that day. Id. Neither still photograph showed appellee entering the store. Id. Later that same day, around 5:00 p.m., Chief Wojciechowsky proceeded to appellee's residence, advised his mother of the homicide, and stated he wished to speak to appellee. Id. at 20. Appellee was not home, but his mother consented to a search of the property. Id. at 20-21. During the search of the property, officers recovered box cutters from a toolbox in appellee's bedroom and a pair of work gloves from the backyard, both of which were similar to items found at the scene of the homicide. Id. at 21.
Appellee was detained the next day based on two outstanding warrants and was taken to an interview room at Pottsville City Hall. Id. at 12. Chief Wojciechowsky turned on an audio and visual recorder, read appellee his Miranda1 rights, and began to interview appellee regarding the homicide of the victim. Id. at 13-14. During the initial stages of the interview, which began at 1:05 p.m., appellee continuously denied being involved in the homicide. Id. at 16. Subsequent to these initial denials, the following exchange took place between 1:25 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.:
Joint Submission of Transcription of Confession (Confession Transcript) at 16-17 (emphasis added). Chief Wojciechowsky continued talking to appellee regarding testing at the lab and then left the room for approximately eight minutes. Id. at 18. While Chief Wojciechowsky was outside the interview room, another officer entered the room, asked for appellee's shoes, and appellee complied. Id. Chief Wojciechowsky then re-entered the room and discussed with appellee the types of evidence that could be found on his shoes; appellee continued to deny involvement in the homicide. Id. at 18-22.
Thereafter, at around 1:53 p.m., appellee asked Chief Wojciechowsky if he could ask him a quick question off camera. Id. at 22. After their off-the-record conversation, Chief Wojciechowsky turned the camera back on, re-advised appellee of his Miranda rights, and appellee asked to speak with someone from the Schuylkill County District Attorney's Office in regards to whether he could receive a deal in exchange for his cooperation. Id. at 23-25. Chief Wojciechowsky again turned the camera off and there was a break in the interview from approximately 2:00 p.m. until 2:22 p.m. when John Fegley (ADA Fegley) from the District Attorney's Office arrived. Id. at 26. Appellee was again advised of his Miranda rights and he subsequently confessed to participating in the victim's murder. Id. at 26-52.
During his confession, appellee stated he used one of the victim's credit cards to access an ATM and then placed it in a storm drain. Id. at 44-48. Officers subsequently recovered the credit card, a pair of sunglasses, a t-shirt, and a hat in a storm drain. N.T. 1/12/16 at 43-44. Based on the confession and the recovery of the credit card, officers were able to retrieve video which showed appellee accessing an ATM around the time of the homicide. Id. at 43.
Appellee was subsequently arrested and charged with the murder of the victim and related offenses.
Prior to trial, appellee filed a motion to suppress any statements made to the police after he stated, (hereinafter referred to as "appellee's invocation" or "his invocation"). The motion further requested that appellee's shoes and any other evidence recovered as a result of those statements, including the items found in the storm drain and the ATM video, also be suppressed. The suppression court held a hearing on the motion in which it viewed a video recording of appellee's invocation and read a transcription of appellee's full confession. The court also heard testimony from Chief Wojciechowsky, who testified to the above facts, and Detective Kirk Becker, who stated he would have retrieved the ATM video in the normal course of his investigation by contacting the victim's banks to determine if any of his accounts had been accessed subsequent to his death. Id. at 45. The suppression court subsequently filed an opinion and order, granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part.
The suppression court first determined Suppression Court Op. 4/5/16 at 34. The court based its suppression of these statements on its finding appellee unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent by stating Id. at 34. The court further suppressed the items found in the storm drain as evidence derivative of the illegally obtained confession.3 The court found this case to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Frein
...the officers clearly understood Appellant's statement as an invocation of his right to remain silent. Indeed, in Commonwealth v. Lukach , ––– Pa. ––––, 195 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2018), this Court held, inter alia , that the suspect unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent when stating: "I d......
-
Commonwealth v. Santiago
...we are bound by those facts and may reverse only if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error." Commonwealth v. Lukach , ––– Pa. ––––, 195 A.3d 176, 183 (2018) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).9 The Commonwealth's opportunity to test a witness' ability to identify a......
-
Commonwealth v. Trahey
...of the defense and so much of the evidence for the Commonwealth as remains uncontradicted" in the record. Commonwealth v. Lukach , ––– Pa. ––––, 195 A.3d 176, 183 (2018) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mistler , 590 Pa. 390, 912 A.2d 1265, 1268-69 (2006) ). Trahey did not offer any evidence at the......
-
Commonwealth v. Rankinen
...properly find that Miranda rights have been waived." Commonwealth v. Lukach , 163 A.3d 1003, 1011 (Pa.Super. 2017), affirmed , 649 Pa. 26, 195 A.3d 176 (2018)."[I]n Berghuis v. Thompkins , 560 U.S. 370, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), the high Court held that an individual in polic......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...statement was coerced and involuntary, thus rendering all evidence obtained from the interrogation inadmissible. Commonwealth v. Lukach , 195 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2018). PR A CTICE P OINTER When arguing that under your state constitution that physical evidence should be suppressed as the fruit of ......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...statement was coerced and involuntary, thus rendering all evidence obstained from the interrogation inadmissible. Commonwealth v. Lukach , 195 A.3d 176 (Pa. 2018). LITIGATING MIRANDA RIGHTS 10-7 Litigating Miranda Rights §10:07 PR A CTICE P OINTER When arguing that under your state constitu......