Hall v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 03 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2017-CA-001638-DG,2017-CA-001638-DG |
| Parties | TRISTAN HALL APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
On June 24, 2014, several officers from the Williamsburg Police Department came to Hall's residence to execute a search warrant. Officers also had arrest warrants for Hall and his girlfriend, Angela Reeves. Police Chief Wayne Bird was the first to approach the front door of the residence. Immediately after being greeted by a juvenile who opened the door, Chief Bird observed Hall walking toward him. It is undisputed Chief Bird asked Hall about Reeves' whereabouts, to which Hall responded he had not seen her in several months. Reeves was subsequently located hiding in a closet in the residence. Hall was charged with hindering prosecution based on the false statements he made to Chief Bird. The sole factual dispute is whether Hall was arrested and secured with handcuffs prior to being questioned regarding Reeves' location.
Although the case originated in Whitley District Court, subsequent events resulted in a transfer of venue to Laurel District Court in June of 2016. During the pendency of the matter, Hall filed no fewer than three motions assertinghis right to a speedy trial and multiple motions seeking dismissal of the charges against him; all were denied.
Hall also filed a motion to suppress his statement to Chief Bird which formed the basis for the hindering prosecution charge.3 A hearing was conducted on February 2, 2015, at which Chief Bird was the sole witness. Chief Bird stated Hall was not under arrest and police were not seeking to arrest him until after Hall made the false statement regarding Reeves' whereabouts. The trial court denied the suppression motion upon concluding Hall was not in custody at the time Chief Bird asked the single question, thus negating the need to inform Hall of his Miranda4 rights.
On September 13, 2016, Hall filed a renewed suppression motion based on newly discovered evidence. In the renewed motion, Hall contended Chief Bird had testified before the grand jury regarding unrelated charges on the same day as the earlier suppression hearing. During that testimony, Chief Bird stated Hall was arrested immediately before being questioned about Reeves. Hall asserted this contradictory testimony established he was, in fact, in custody whenChief Bird questioned him, thereby requiring the giving of a Miranda warning and the failure to do so required suppression of his statement. Following a hearing at which only argument from counsel was presented, the district court reaffirmed its previous ruling.
Shortly thereafter, Hall entered a conditional plea reserving the right to appeal. Pursuant to his agreement with the Commonwealth, Hall was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the hindering prosecution charge and six months for contempt, to be served consecutively for a total of eighteen months. However, also pursuant to the plea agreement, the sentence was suspended and conditionally discharged for one year.
On appeal to the Laurel Circuit Court, Hall challenged denial of his suppression motion and the district court's failure to dismiss the charges for alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial. After reviewing the record, the circuit court concluded the district court's factual findings regarding suppression were supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, it found no error in the district court's conclusion Chief Bird's grand jury testimony was a summary of events intended for another purpose. In a lengthy analysis, the circuit court agreed with the district court's legal holding that Hall was not in custody nor under arrest at the time Chief Bird posed his single question. The circuit court concludedMiranda warnings were unnecessary considering the totality of the circumstances and thus, no basis existed to suppress Hall's statement.
Further, the circuit court rejected Hall's assertion the trial court should have dismissed the charges against him for alleged violations of his right to a speedy trial. Although the length of delay facially appeared extraordinary, the circuit court set forth a detailed recitation of the factual and procedural causes for postponements and complications in the matter, concluding delays were chiefly attributable to Hall and many were acquiesced in or prompted by his own counsel. Discerning no substantial prejudice or impairment to the defense from any delay, the circuit court found no violation of Hall's speedy trial rights.
We granted discretionary review to determine whether the district court erred in denying the suppression motion and whether Hall's right to a speedy trial was violated. Discerning no error, we affirm the lower courts' rulings.
Our standard for appellate review of rulings on pretrial motions to suppress evidence remains unchanged despite the recent repeal of [Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure (RCr)] 9.78 and its reformulation under RCr 8.27. Simpson v. Commonwealth, 474 S.W.3d 544, 546-47 (Ky. 2015). We apply the same two-step process adopted in Adcock v. Commonwealth, 967 S.W.2d 6, 8 (Ky. 1998). First, we review the trial court's findings of fact, which are deemed to be conclusive, if they are supported by substantial evidence. Next, we review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts to determine whether its decision is correct as a matter of law.
Maloney v. Commonwealth, 489 S.W.3d 235, 237 (Ky. 2016). Substantial evidence is "evidence of substance and relevant consequence, having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable men." Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 308 (Ky. 1972).
The parties frame the issue on appeal as a challenge to the district court's finding Hall was not in custody when Chief Bird questioned him. Hall contends Chief Bird's contradictory testimony establishes he had been arrested prior to being interviewed. He contends the lower courts erred in ignoring the grand jury testimony which clearly showed he was under arrest and in handcuffs at the time the incriminating statement was made. Interestingly, Hall's position ignores Chief Bird's testimony during the suppression hearing. The Commonwealth maintains Chief Bird's testimony before the grand jury was summary in nature, was not given in a dispositive proceeding such as the suppression hearing, and thus any contradictions are irrelevant. Additionally, the Commonwealth posits custody status is immaterial as the question posed by Chief Bird was unrelated to the arrest warrant he possessed for Hall or to any other current investigation.
Our review reveals Chief Bird's conflicting testimony, while concerning, is not dispositive of the matter at bar.
In a trial without a jury, the findings of the trial court, if supported by sufficient evidence, cannot be set asideunless they are found to be "clearly erroneous." [Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR)] 52.01; Stafford v. Stafford, [618 S.W.2d 578 (Ky. App. 1981)]. This principle recognizes that the trial court had the opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.
R.C.R. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources, 988 S.W.2d 36, 39 (Ky. App. 1998). The clearly erroneous standard set forth in CR 52.01 is based on a review for clear and convincing evidence. W.A. v. Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 214, 220 (Ky. App. 2008). As this Court has previously stated, clear and convincing proof does not mean uncontradicted proof. Id. Rather, it is sufficient if there is proof of a "probative and substantial nature carrying the weight of evidence sufficient to convince ordinarily prudent-minded people." V.S. v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Human Resources, 706 S.W.2d 420, 423-24 (Ky. App. 1986) (quoting Rowland v. Holt, 253 Ky. 718, 70 S.W.2d 5, 9 (1934)).
Although the evidence presented was certainly controverted and Hall disagrees with the lower courts' assessments, there was sufficient probative evidence to support the contested factual findings. Thus, no clear error exists. Nevertheless, the question of whether Hall was in custody when Chief Bird asked him about Reeves' whereabouts is not the only issue bearing consideration for Miranda purposes.
Our review reveals Chief Bird's inquiry was not reasonably...
To continue reading
Request your trial