State v. Burton

• Citation: 314 Ga. 637,878 S.E.2d 515
• Decision Date: 20 September 2022
• Docket Number: S22A0684
• Parties: The STATE v. BURTON.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

314 Ga. 637

878 S.E.2d 515

The STATE

v.BURTON.

S22A0684

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: September 20, 2022

Timothy Patrick Dean, A.D.A., Shalena Cook Jones, District Attorney, Eastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, 133 Montgomery Street, Suite 600, Savannah, Georgia 31401, Paula Khristian Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Department of Law, 40 Capitol Square, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30334, for Appellant.

Martin Gregory Hilliard, Martin G. Hilliard PC, 219 West York Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401, for Appellee.

Warren, Justice.

The State appeals the trial court's suppression of custodial statements 16-year-old Jeffrey Burton made during a video-taped interview with law enforcement officers who had arrested Burton for the murder of George Akins, Jr. The State contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Burton clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent and that the State failed to show that Burton knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). For the reasons explained below, we do not decide whether the trial court erred in concluding that Burton clearly invoked his right to remain silent. However, we conclude that the trial court did not err in ruling that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that Burton knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda , a ruling that is supported by factual and credibility findings that are not clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm.

1. Background

(a) Factual Background

Viewing the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the factual findings and to the judgment of the trial court, see Walker v. State , 312 Ga. 332, 336, 862 S.E.2d 542 (2021), the evidence shows the following. On October 23, 2017, when Burton was 16 years old, he was taken into custody for a murder that occurred two days earlier when someone exited a vehicle and shot into a group of people in a McDonald's parking lot. Detectives conducted a custodial interview of Burton that was video-recorded. Prior to trial, Burton filed a "Motion to Suppress All Statements Made by Mr. Burton to Police on October 23, 2017, and Fruits Thereof." On November 10, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Burton's motion. The video recording of Burton's interview, along with testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, showed that Burton was interviewed over a period of several hours by Detective Brittany Dobbs, who appeared to lead the interview, and Detective Christopher Ross, who assisted in the interview.¹

At the time of his interview, Burton was a junior in high school. During the interview, one of Burton's wrists was handcuffed to a railing in the interview room, which was usually kept at a temperature around 68 degrees. After the detectives entered the interview room and introduced themselves, Detective Dobbs asked some preliminary questions about Burton's contact and other identifying information, and about his age and education. She also asked whether he was under the influence of any intoxicants, and she asked if he had any medical or mental issues that would prevent him from being able to speak to them. Detective Dobbs then advised Burton of his rights under Miranda and advised him that he had a right to have a parent present. The record indicates that officers did not initially contact Burton's parents to inform them about his detention. Detective Ross testified at the hearing on Burton's motion to suppress that Burton never asked to see his mother or for her to be brought in the interview room; that "[i]n determining whether to bring a juvenile's parents into the interview room, .... [i]f he asked for his parents, his parents would be allowed in the room. And if he did not, we don't offer it"; and that Detective Ross did not notify Burton's parents that their son was in custody "[a]t any point in time during that day."

After Detective Dobbs explained Burton's rights to him, Burton confirmed that he understood them, and the following exchange occurred:

DETECTIVE DOBBS: And having these rights in mind, are you willing to talk to us now?

BURTON: Yeah, I don't want to.^[2]

DETECTIVE DOBBS: It's up to you.

BURTON: [brief, unintelligible response³ ]

DETECTIVE DOBBS: Okay. Um, if you will just, um, I'll have to check those boxes "yes," and if you'll initial right there for me, and then just sign right there.

At that point, Detective Dobbs slid a waiver-of-rights form in front of Burton, Burton signed and initialed it⁴ , and the interview began.

When asked, "Do you kinda know why you're here?" Burton responded, "Yeah, I heard stuff about it, but I don't like ...." Detective Ross then asked, "What have you heard? ... Why do you think you're here right now? ... Why do you think you're talking to us?" Burton responded, "That the police and stuff is looking for me.... because somebody brought my name into ... that thing that happened Saturday with George ... that murder."

During the interview, Burton admitted to being with Trevon Jean-Baptiste, who was later charged with Akins's murder as Burton's co-defendant. Burton stated that he and Jean-Baptiste gave a ride to another person named "T" who allegedly got out of the car and shot into a group of people near McDonald's, but Burton denied any involvement in the shooting. Detective Ross later informed Burton that he was being charged with murder. Soon after that, Detective Ross leaned in close to Burton and raised his voice, saying, "this ain't no little kid s**t. This is f*****g for real.... So this ... is bulls**t.... You need to f*****g tell me who the hell T is...."

At other points in the interview, the detectives brought water to Burton, as well as a space heater when Burton—who can be seen in the video pulling his arms into the sleeves of his short-sleeve shirt—said he was cold. The detectives also allowed Burton to use the restroom upon request. And although it is not entirely clear from the record whether police obtained an arrest warrant for Burton before or during the interview,⁵ , at the end of the interview, the detectives told him, "You're being charged. We can't stop that. That happened before you even got here," and provided him with a copy of the arrest warrant. They also informed Burton at that time that they had "told his parents what's going on."

(b) The Trial Court's Order

On November 22, the trial court entered an order granting Burton's motion in part and suppressing all of the statements Burton made during his custodial interview.⁶ The trial court first noted that "the issues currently before the Court are whether [Burton] unequivocally invoked his right to silence or waived his rights and whether [his] subsequent statements to police were voluntary." It then concluded that when Detective Dobbs asked Burton whether he wished to speak with detectives after he had been informed about his rights under Miranda , Burton's response of, "Yeah, I don't want to," was a "clear and unambiguous" invocation of his right to remain silent. Specifically, the court concluded that "when Det[ective] Dobbs asked [Burton] whether, having his Miranda rights in mind, he wished to speak to them, [Burton] shook his head in the negative and replied, ‘Yeah, I don't want to.’ " The court further concluded that

[w]hile the State focuses on the "Yeah" to suggest that [Burton] was agreeing to speak to police, the Court takes this word to be more of an affectation of speech or a conversation filler rather than an affirmative response to Det[ective] Dobbs's question. Moreover, the Court cannot ignore what followed—an unambiguous "I don't want to."

It also emphasized that it "finds it particularly unlikely that [Burton] meant for his reply to have an affirmative connotation given that he was shaking his head ‘no’ as he made the statement."

With respect to Burton's later response to Detective Dobbs's statement of "It's up to you," the court found that Burton's "verbal response ... is unintelligible to the Court, even after multiple re-listenings"; that Detective Ross "did not recall what [Burton] said, nor could he make it out upon listening to the recording"; and that Burton "appeared to shrug at the time he made the unclear utterance, and his body language was not that of an individual who seemed open to conversation." Given that Detective Dobbs "did not make any further attempts to gain clarity on whether [Burton] wished to speak with them, but rather pushed the constitutional rights form toward [Burton] to get him to agree to waive his rights," the trial court then moved to an analysis of whether Burton voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda after he invoked his right to silence.

Because Burton was a juvenile at the time his interview was conducted, the trial court considered the nine factors set forth in Riley v. State , 237 Ga. 124, 226 S.E.2d 922 (1976), to determine whether Burton voluntarily waived his rights. Those factors are the:

"(1) age of the accused; (2) education of the accused; (3) knowledge of the accused as to both the substance of the charge ... and the nature of his rights to consult with an attorney and remain silent; (4) whether the accused is held incommunicado or allowed to consult with relatives, friends or an attorney; (5) whether the accused was interrogated before or after formal charges had been filed; (6) methods used in interrogation; (7) length of interrogations; (8) whether vel non the accused refused to voluntarily give statements on prior occasions; and (9) whether the accused has repudiated an extra judicial statement at a later date."

Riley , 237 Ga. at 128, 226 S.E.2d 922 (quoting West v. United States , 399 F.2d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 1968) ). The court added that " ‘[i]n the specific context of evaluating whether a juvenile defendant's rights were knowingly and voluntarily waived, the inquiry "depends...