Higgins v. State, No. 93-268

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before GOLDEN; TAYLOR
• Citation: 889 P.2d 964
• Decision Date: 13 February 1995
• Docket Number: No. 93-268
• Parties: Tammy HIGGINS, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

Page 964

889 P.2d 964 Tammy HIGGINS, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). No. 93-268. Supreme Court of Wyoming. Feb. 13, 1995.

Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Deborah Cornia, Asst. Public Defender, Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, Defender Aid Program, and Tom Sutherland, Student Intern, representing appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Sylvia L. Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., D. Michael Pauling, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Georgia L. Tibbetts, Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodore E. Lauer, Director, Prosecution Assistance Program, Rose Meacham and Bruce Horton, Student Interns, representing appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, ^* MACY and TAYLOR, JJ.

TAYLOR, Justice.

A confession exacted from a criminal defendant in violation of applicable constitutional protections is not admissible at that defendant's trial. In this appeal, we are asked to determine if the district court erred in admitting such a confession or, if it was erroneously admitted, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, appellant contends the State deliberately delayed her appearance before a judge for the purpose of obtaining a confession.

We affirm.

I. ISSUES

Appellant raises these issues:

I. Did the trial court err in concluding that Tammy Higgins' confession was the result of a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of her rights under the Fifth Amendment of the

Page 965

United States Constitution and under the Wyoming Constitution, Article I, Section Eleven, when there was no readvisement of her rights for the second, third, and fourth custodial interrogations?

II. Did the trial court err in concluding that Tammy Higgins' confession was voluntary within the meaning of the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and the Wyoming Constitution's Article I, Section Six, due process clause, when four different officers attempted to extract a confession from Ms. Higgins over the course of three months, with the last two officers attempting to get a confession from Ms. Higgins for seven to seven and a half hours within an eleven hour period?

(A) Did the timing and circumstances of Officer Hofmeier's arrest constitute an "unnecessary delay" in bringing Ms. Higgins before the judicial officer of the court from which the warrant was issued and as such, constitute a de facto denial of her rights to both an attorney and to due process under both the United States Constitution's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as under both the Wyoming Constitution's Article I, Sections Six and Ten?

III. Did the trial court err by misapplying the Wyoming Supreme Court's precedent, when it analyzed the necessity of subsequent Miranda warnings, for subsequent interrogation periods, under the following standard: "the trial court was to make a determination as to the sufficiency of the original warnings and the conduct of the second officer.", when totality of the circumstances is the appropriate standard?

Appellee rephrases the issues:

I. Did the district court correctly find that the statement made by appellant, following the giving of Miranda warnings which appellant acknowledged that she understood and subsequently waived, was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given, and thus admissible into evidence at trial?

II. Did the circumstances of appellant's arrest, pursuant to a warrant issued by the county court, and her transportation from the place of her arrest to the court which issued the warrant constitute an unreasonable delay which violated appellant's constitutional rights?

II. FACTS

Facts are pivotal in the resolution of any issue of law. This is especially true in this case. A brief overview of the circumstances surrounding the crime will be helpful.

Shortly before midnight on December 6, 1992, Paul Minick (Minick) and his friend Mike Webb (Webb) were traveling along I-90 about twenty miles south of Sheridan, Wyoming. Meanwhile, Tammy Higgins (Higgins) and her friend Rachel Smith (Smith) ¹ were cruising I-90 south of Sheridan looking for someone to rob. Their strategy was to find a car with license plates from a distant state, shoot a tire out, and then rob the stranded motorist. Higgins spotted a car with Florida license plates. The car was driven by Minick and Webb. Higgins drove alongside the vehicle and Smith shot out the right rear tire with a rifle. Minick and Webb...