Kalmakoff v. State

Citation269 Ed. Law Rep. 881,257 P.3d 108
Decision Date29 July 2011
Docket NumberNo. S–13439.,S–13439.
PartiesByron KALMAKOFF, Petitioner,v.STATE of Alaska, Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Alaska (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Josie Garton, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Petitioner.Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals, Anchorage, and Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Juneau, for Respondent.Before: CARPENETI, Chief Justice, FABE, WINFREE, CHRISTEN, and STOWERS, Justices.

OPINION
FABE, Justice.I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted Byron Kalmakoff of raping and murdering his cousin in the village of Pilot Point. Kalmakoff had just turned 15 when the crime was committed. The Alaska State Troopers sent to investigate the murder conducted four interviews with Kalmakoff while they were in Pilot Point. Before trial Kalmakoff moved to suppress his statements from those interviews based on violations of Miranda v. Arizona.1 The trial court suppressed a portion of the first interview and all of the second interview but admitted all of the third and fourth interviews. The court of appeals affirmed Kalmakoff's convictions, concluding that any error in admitting portions of the first interview was harmless and that the third and fourth interviews were sufficiently insulated from any Miranda violations that occurred during the first two interviews. We granted Kalmakoff's petition for review and remanded the case to the trial court for additional factual findings, retaining jurisdiction. We now conclude that the Miranda violations in the first and second interviews violated Kalmakoff's right to remain silent and that the third and fourth interviews were tainted by the violations in the first and second interviews. We therefore reverse Kalmakoff's convictions and remand the case for a new trial.

II. FACTS

On February 10, 2002, a 27–year–old woman, B.K., was reported missing in Pilot Point, a small village on the Alaska Peninsula with a population of less than 100. Molly Etuckmelra, the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO), called Alaska State Trooper Shane Stephenson to report that B.K. was missing and called him again later to report that B.K.'s body had been found. B.K. had been shot twice in the head, and a later autopsy revealed injuries consistent with sexual penetration shortly before her death.

Trooper Stephenson and Trooper Pete Mlynarik flew from King Salmon to Pilot Point to begin the investigation.2 Trooper Stephenson first visited the location where the victim's nude body had been discovered and attempted to secure the crime scene from the wind and snow. After learning that B.K. had attended a party at Rick Reynolds's house the previous night, Trooper Stephenson secured two additional crime scenes: Reynolds's house, where Stephenson believed B.K. had been shot, and an airport hangar where tire tracks, footprints, and blood had been found. Trooper Stephenson also began talking to the residents of Pilot Point “to get a general overview of the situation.”

A. The First Interview

On Tuesday, February 12, Troopers Stephenson and Mlynarik interviewed Byron Kalmakoff for the first time.3 The troopers conducted interviews throughout the day in a meeting room at the Pilot Point city offices. The city offices were used for many purposes and contained the VPSO office. The room where the troopers conducted the interviews was approximately 20 feet by 30 feet, was well-lit with large windows, and had more than one door. The doors to the room were closed during the interviews, but no guards were stationed outside. The troopers were in uniform and visibly armed.

With the help of VPSO Etuckmelra, Trooper Stephenson put together a list of the people who had likely attended the party at Reynolds's house. Etuckmelra contacted the people on the list to let them know that the troopers wanted to speak with them. Three people on the list, including Byron Kalmakoff, were students who were in school. Kalmakoff had turned 15 only a few weeks before. Etuckmelra drove to the school and informed the principal teacher, Jodi Mallonee, that she “needed to get Byron for the troopers so they could interview him.” Mallonee had also received a phone call from the school superintendent's office in King Salmon authorizing her to release students for interviews with the troopers. Mallonee called Kalmakoff out of class and Etuckmelra drove him and two other students to the city offices in the VPSO truck. All that Etuckmelra told the students was that the troopers needed to get some information from them. The trial court found on remand that Kalmakoff “was not told that he did or did not have to accompany the VPSO to the city offices, and that it is likely that he believed that he had to go.” Neither Mallonee nor Etuckmelra said anything to Kalmakoff about whether he had to answer the troopers' questions. Nobody contacted Kalmakoff's grandparents—who were also his adoptive parents—to inform them about the interview.

Troopers Stephenson and Mlynarik began interviewing Kalmakoff at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12. The interview lasted just under an hour and a half, ending at 2:52 p.m. Trooper Stephenson described the interview as “informal and quiet.” Trooper Mlynarik testified that he considered Kalmakoff a suspect because [h]e was somebody that—that we had learned about due to some other situations,” but Trooper Stephenson explained that he had not narrowed his list of suspects yet and at that point everyone who had attended Reynolds's party was a suspect.

The troopers did not tell Kalmakoff that he was free to leave or that he did not have to answer their questions; instead, they emphasized that Kalmakoff needed to tell them the truth. After taking Kalmakoff's basic background information, Trooper Stephenson told Kalmakoff: “I need for you to[,] um[,] be very specific and very ah[,] truthful with me[,] on everything that you answer so I don't have to come back[,] and ask you why okay[?] It'll look good ... on your part.” A few minutes later, Trooper Stephenson reminded Kalmakoff: “I want you to make sure that you're perfectly truthful with me ... I will probably know if you're lying to me, okay[?] The troopers did not administer Miranda warnings to Kalmakoff. Kalmakoff admitted to the troopers that he had been drinking on the night of the murder, that he had returned to Reynolds's house with his cousin (B.K.'s brother) to “check on” B.K. shortly before she was killed, and that B.K. was mad at them.

Once Kalmakoff made these admissions, the troopers' questions became more pointed and accusatory. After Kalmakoff admitted to being in Reynolds's house not long before the murder, Trooper Stephenson asked him: “I know that you were snooping, snooping around ... which one of you picked up the gun?” Kalmakoff admitted that he had picked up a pistol and taken it outside. Trooper Stephenson began asking Kalmakoff about the details of the gun, reminding him: “I'm asking questions because I know[,] I know certain things, okay[?] A few minutes later, after Kalmakoff described his conversation with B.K., Trooper Stephenson asked, [A]nd[,] that's when things got out of control wasn't it[,] all messed up?” Kalmakoff denied this and repeated that he and his cousin had left Reynolds's house. Trooper Stephenson replied, “You're missing a chunk,” and then asked a variety of questions implying that Kalmakoff was involved in the murder, including: [Did] you guys cover her up?”; “How'd you get her downstairs?”; “Did you think you killed her[,] at that point?”; “Did you think that you did[,] because you thought they were blanks?” Kalmakoff responded, “I never killed her,” and repeated that he and his cousin had taken the pistol and shot blanks outside his cousin's house.

Trooper Stephenson then took a break to have a drink of water and purchased a soda for Kalmakoff. During the break, Trooper Stephenson remarked to Trooper Mlynarik, “I think we're hot on the trail now ... I haven't looked at the bottom of his shoes yet, but....” 4 Kalmakoff's grandmother, Martha Kalmakoff, also arrived at the city offices during the break.5 Trooper Stephenson saw Martha but did not ask her to join the interview, and Martha did not ask if she could join.

After the break, Kalmakoff asked how much longer the interview was going to continue. Trooper Stephenson answered “a little bit” but neither informed Kalmakoff that he was free to leave nor read him his Miranda rights. The troopers resumed questioning Kalmakoff about the gun, the ammunition, and the shell casings from the shots he fired with his cousin. The troopers then looked at the bottom of Kalmakoff's shoes and directed Kalmakoff to take off his jacket and shirt. Trooper Stephenson later testified that the sole of Kalmakoff's shoe resembled the prints that were found at the airplane hangar crime scene.

The troopers then took Kalmakoff outside so that he could show them the dumpster where he allegedly threw away the shell casings from the pistol. Kalmakoff also showed them his cousin's house where he and his cousin had shot the gun. Kalmakoff then asked if he had to go back to the city building where he had been questioned and Trooper Stephenson answered, “Yea[h], we're not even done.” Trooper Stephenson later testified that at this point Kalmakoff was considered a prime suspect.

Upon returning to the city building, the troopers introduced themselves to Martha Kalmakoff. Trooper Stephenson informed Martha that he would be seizing Kalmakoff's four-wheeler, coat, shoes, and gloves, and asked her to get Kalmakoff some different clothes. Trooper Stephenson told Kalmakoff that he could go back to school but that he could not return to his grandmother's house or his biological mother's house until Trooper Stephenson gave him permission. 6 Trooper Stephenson later explained that he did not want Kalmakoff to return to those houses because he planned to obtain search warrants for them and because he was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • J.J. v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 17 Junio 2021
    ...law enforcement officer might reasonably believe that he is not free to leave the interview or break off questioning." Kalmakoff v. State, 257 P.3d 108, 123 (Alaska 2011). The panel majority simply ignores the implications of the school setting in which J.J. was questioned, apparently not f......
  • Gray v. Dormire
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 8 Diciembre 2011
    ...25, 2011); Ahumada v. McDonald, No. ED CV 10-1454 RGK (MRW), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88273 (C.D. Cal., July 12, 2011), and Kalmakoff v. State, 257 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2011). None of these cases apply the holding of J.D.B. retroactively, as Petitioner alleges. Finley and Ahumada both cite to J.D.......
4 books & journal articles
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...to comply with your client’s assertion of silence. See for example Henry v. Kernan , 197 F.3d 1021(9th Cir.1999); Klamakoff v. State , 257 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2011). Under another possible scenario the police may terminate the questioning but resume it later without complying with all of the M......
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...to comply with your client’s assertion of silence. See for example Henry v. Kernan , 197 F.3d 1021(9th Cir.1999); Klamakoff v. State , 257 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2011). Under another possible scenario the police may terminate the questioning but resume it later without complying with all of the M......
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...to comply with your client’s assertion of silence. See for example Henry v. Kernan , 197 F.3d 1021(9th Cir.1999); Klamakoff v. State , 257 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2011). Under another possible scenario the police may terminate the questioning but resume it later without complying with all of the M......
  • Litigating Miranda Rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ...to comply with your client’s assertion of silence. See for example Henry v. Kernan , 197 F.3d 1021(9th Cir.1999); Klamakoৼ v. State , 257 P.3d 108 (Alaska 2011). §10:61 SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 10-38 Under another possible scenario the police may terminate the questioning but resume it......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT