Crawford v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1990
• Citation: 580 A.2d 571
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2233 Steven D. CRAWFORD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 571

580 A.2d 571

15 Fla. L. Weekly D2233

Steven D. CRAWFORD, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: June 19, 1990.

Decided: Sept. 21, 1990.

John R. Hiner, Jr. (argued) and Edward C. Pankowski, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, Office of the Public Defender, Wilmington, for appellant.

Gary A. Myers (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, for appellee.

Before MOORE, WALSH and HOLLAND, JJ.

WALSH, Justice:

This is an appeal by the defendant, Stephen D. Crawford ("Crawford"), from a conviction in the Superior Court of murder in the first degree, as well as related charges of first degree arson and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony. Crawford contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress a statement made by him while in police custody after he had invoked his right to counsel. We conclude that Crawford's attempted invocation of his right to counsel was, at best, ambiguous and did not bar further questioning following police attempts at clarification. Finding no error in the Superior Court ruling, we affirm the convictions.

I

The facts pertinent to the defendant's allegations of error are essentially undisputed. On Saturday, January 30, 1988, Marcella Stewart was found murdered in her apartment. She had suffered numerous injuries from a beating and stabbing. The bed in which her body lay had been set on fire, presumably in an attempt to conceal her murder. Crawford, a former boyfriend of the victim, was a suspect in the ensuing investigation. The police made several attempts to locate Crawford in order to question him. During the period from Saturday through Monday, the police visited various locations and left business cards with requests that the defendant contact them.

On Tuesday, February 2, 1988, Crawford telephoned the police and spoke with one of the investigators, Officer Vietri. Vietri asked the defendant to come to the police station for questioning. In the course of the conversation, there was some mention of an attorney. According to Officer Vietri, the defendant asked whether he should bring an attorney. Officer Vietri responded that the defendant would have to decide that for himself. However, the defendant testified that he indicated to the officer that he was planning to contact an attorney before presenting himself at the police station.

After his telephone call to the police, Crawford attempted to locate an attorney. With the aid of relatives, he visited one law office and telephoned another. Unable to retain counsel, the defendant proceeded to the office of a third attorney who had previously represented his sister. While en route, the defendant was taken into custody by police officers, including Vietri, who had secured a search warrant authorizing them to secure handprints, hair samples and fingernail scrapings from the defendant.

Officer Vietri advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and asked if he was willing to talk to the police. The defendant answered that he understood his rights and that he would be willing to talk. In response to Officer Vietri's subsequent question concerning his destination, the defendant responded, "I was looking for a lawyer." The defendant's concern about locating counsel was not relayed by Vietri to the other officers responsible for confinement or questioning.

Officer Vietri then turned the defendant over to other officers, who transported the defendant to the police station. While en route, the defendant initiated a conversation with one of the transporting officers, Officer Glose. Glose interrupted the defendant and read the Miranda rights a second time. The transporting officers did not interrogate the defendant, nor did they attempt to pursue the conversation initiated by the defendant.

Upon arrival at the police station, the defendant was handed over to the detectives responsible for the investigation. Detective Tabor, who was unaware that the defendant had been attempting to find a lawyer when apprehended, advised the defendant of his rights a third time. The defendant expressly agreed to talk to the officers without a lawyer present. ¹ Tabor and another officer then interviewed the defendant orally. When an attorney contacted by Crawford's sister arrived at the police station and directed that the interview stop, the police ceased further questioning.

Although under detention for a body search, the defendant was not placed under arrest. Furthermore, he was aware that when the body search was completed he would be released. The statements made by the defendant during interrogation were generally exculpatory, consisting of explanations of his whereabouts at the time of the murder. Through further investigation, the police were able to demonstrate certain contradictions and inaccuracies in the defendant's statements. This evidence was presented at trial as proof of the defendant's guilt.

II

Crawford contends that his active search for an attorney constituted an unequivocal invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and police questioning with knowledge of his effort contravened that right. Alternatively, he argues that even if his actions are deemed an ambiguous invocation, the failure of the police to clarify his intentions renders subsequent statements equally suppressible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). To the contrary, the State argues that the police proceeded properly in the face of Crawford's ambiguous conduct.

In Miranda, the Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment right to silence to include a right to counsel during interrogation. Id. 86 S.Ct. at 1630. Determining that custodial interrogation ² is fundamentally coercive, the Court held that a detained suspect "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation ..." Id. at 1626. Failure to offer the assistance of counsel during questioning was held to undermine the protection of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Therefore, the Court concluded that any evidence obtained in a custodial interrogation should be excluded where "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination" were not utilized. Id. at 1612.

The Miranda court also attempted to define the standard by which invocations of the right to counsel should be evaluated. The Court held:

If, however, [a suspect] indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.

Id. at 1612. A second requirement was also added: the right to counsel could only be waived "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently." Id. The broad language concerning invocation and the strict waiver standard, on their face, appear to imply that even an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel would require the cessation of questioning. However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions have significantly eroded the expansive standards proposed by the Miranda court.

A.

Where a suspect has made an explicit request for the assistance of counsel, the duty imposed upon the police is clear: no further questioning may occur until counsel is provided or the suspect himself initiates further conversation. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). ³ In Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984), the Court refined this standard by setting forth a two step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the defendant actually invoked his right to counsel. Once this determination is made, further statements by the defendant are admissible only if (a) the defendant initiated further discussion, and (b) the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have an attorney present. Id. 105 S.Ct. at 493. This Court has applied this analysis in situations in which the invocation is concededly present. See Wainwright v. State, Del.Supr., 504 A.2d 1096 (1986); see also Brank v. State, Del.Supr., 528 A.2d 1185, 1187 (1987).

In its most recent consideration of the issue, the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), examined an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel that was ignored because the subsequent questioning involved an unrelated crime. In accord with previous decisions, the Roberson court held that the bright line rule set out in Edwards and Miranda required that all interrogation must cease after an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. Moreover, the Court found this strict rule to be applicable even if the questioning was directed to a crime different from the one related to the original invocation. Since the State claimed that the second interrogator was unaware of the original request, the Roberson court also held that subsequent interrogators have the burden of determining whether the right to counsel has been invoked.

B.

Although it has not specifically addressed the question of an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, the Supreme Court has considered related issues on several occasions. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974) (since the procedural rules of Miranda were not themselves rights protected by the constitution, strict adherence to the form suggested in Miranda was not constitutionally required, thus failure of interrogating officers to advise suspect of right to appointed counsel did not invalidate an otherwise voluntary statement); North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979) (the defendant refused to sign a written waiver form, but orally agreed to make a statement. The defendant's actions and words were held to be sufficient to indicate that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights); Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560...