State v. Coerper
| Citation | 544 N.W.2d 423,199 Wis.2d 216 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2791-CR,94-2791-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Brian J. COERPER, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Petitioner. d . Oral Argument: |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Outagamie County; Dennis C. Luebke, Judge.
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued by Sharon Ruhly, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Attorney General.
For the defendant-respondent-cross petitioner there were briefs by Leonard D. Kachinsky and Kachinsky Law Offices, Neenah and oral argument by Leonard D. Kachinsky.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals, State v. Coerper, 192 Wis.2d 566, 531 N.W.2d 614 (Ct.App.1995), affirming in part and reversing in part an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County, Dennis Luebke, Judge. The circuit court had granted a motion of defendant Brian Coerper (Coerper) suppressing statements Mr. Coerper made to an informant prior to the issuance of a criminal complaint charging him with first-degree reckless homicide contrary to Wis.Stat. § 940.02 (1993-94). The court of appeals concluded that statements Coerper made prior to his incarceration on April 15 1994, on a separate matter were not obtained in violation of Coerper's rights and therefore admissible, and reversed the portion of the circuit court order suppressing those statements; however, the court of appeals also concluded that statements Coerper made after his incarceration were obtained in violation of his rights, and the court of appeals affirmed the portion of the circuit court's order suppressing these statements. Because we conclude that there is no evidence that Coerper ever invoked his right to counsel, none of Coerper's statements were taken in violation of his rights. We thus reverse the portion of the court of appeals decision suppressing Coerper's statements made after April 15, 1994, and affirm the portion of the decision reversing the trial court's suppression order.
During January of 1993, Coerper was serving a sentence for burglary in the Outagamie County Jail with Huber work-release privileges pursuant to Wis.Stat. § 303.08 (1993-94). 1 On the evening of January 28, 1993, Coerper informed the Appleton police that he had gone to visit a friend of his, Cynthia Jo Boche (Boche), and had discovered her body behind the door of her apartment. A later autopsy revealed that Boche had been manually strangled to death.
On February 3, and 4, 1993, while Coerper was still in jail on the burglary conviction, a public defender, Eugene Bartman (Bartman), wrote two letters to the Outagamie County district attorney. The letters stated that Coerper was represented by the public defender's office. Attorney Bartman noted in the letters that he understood Coerper to be under investigation for Boche's murder.
Coerper was released from jail on the burglary charge on March 15, 1993. On August 18, 1993, Attorney Bartman wrote a letter to an investigator at the Appleton Police Department, Randall Cook (Cook). The letter stated in part:
I also wish to remind you that Brian Coerper is represented by counsel. Brian is not to be questioned by any law enforcement officer, or anyone acting on behalf of law enforcement, with respect to any matter related to your investigation into the death of Cynthia Jo Boche. Brian has been instructed to invoke his right to counsel and his right against self-incrimination to not discuss anything related to the pending investigation in the absence of his attorney. Any future contact with Brian should be made through me.
I assume you will take responsibility for notifying any other law enforcement officer who may be making contact with Brian in the future that Brian is represented by counsel and that his right to remain silent and his right to counsel have been invoked.
On January 3, 1994, Mr. Cook and another investigator interviewed Jacqueline VandenWyngaard, a former friend of Coerper's. The investigators asked Ms. VandenWyngaard to reestablish her friendship with Coerper in order to gather evidence from Coerper. Ms. VandenWyngaard agreed to assist the police. On January 27, 1994, Coerper visited Ms. VandenWyngaard at her home and spoke with her. Ms. VandenWyngaard recorded the conversation.
On April 15, 1994, Coerper was again jailed on a theft charge and placed on a probation hold. While in jail, he exchanged letters with Ms. VandenWyngaard. On May 2, 1994, while still in jail, Coerper was charged with first-degree reckless homicide in the death of Boche. Coerper and Ms. VandenWyngaard continued their correspondence after the filing of the charge. On appeal, the State has conceded that Ms. VandenWyngaard was an agent of the police from January 3, 1994 to May 1, 1994.
Coerper moved to suppress all statements he made to Ms. VandenWyngaard after January 3, 1994. The circuit court granted Coerper's motion to suppress his statements to Ms. VandenWyngaard. The court of appeals reversed the portion of the circuit court's order suppressing the statements made before Coerper's incarceration on April 15, 1994, and affirmed the portion of the order suppressing the statements made after April 15, 1994.
On review of an order granting suppression, we are bound by the circuit court's findings of historical fact unless they are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. State v. Kramar, 149 Wis.2d 767, 784, 440 N.W.2d 317 (1989). Whether the defendant's Miranda 2 rights were violated is a constitutional fact which this court determines without deference to lower courts. Kramar, 149 Wis.2d at 784, 440 N.W.2d 317.
The United States Supreme Court has identified two sources of the "right to counsel": the Fifth 3 and Sixth 4 Amendments to the Constitution. See McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175-77, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2207-09, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel and its protections are offense-specific, and do not attach until the commencement of a prosecution. Id. at 175, 111 S.Ct. at 2207; see also United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188, 104 S.Ct. 2292, 2297-98, 81 L.Ed.2d 146 (1984); State v. Hanson, 136 Wis.2d 195, 210, 401 N.W.2d 771 (1987). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is thus not at issue in the instant case, because the parties dispute only those statements made before May 2, 1994, when Coerper was charged with Boche's murder.
Coerper argues, however, that the so-called "Fifth Amendment" or "Miranda- Edwards " right to counsel bars the use of the statements obtained during the investigation of Boche's murder. Cases of the United States Supreme Court have derived a right to counsel from the Fifth Amendment in order to protect against self-incrimination under the pressures of custodial interrogation. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 471, 86 S.Ct. at 1624, 1626. Once a suspect invokes the right, the police may not instigate further interrogation unless the suspect's counsel is present. Id. at 474, 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28; Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1884-85, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 153, 111 S.Ct. 486, 491, 112 L.Ed.2d 489 (1990). The Miranda- edwards right to counsel, unlike the sixth amendment right, is not offense-specific: once the right is invoked for a particular offense, the police may not approach the suspect for interrogation regarding any other offense without counsel present. McNeil, 501 U.S. at 177, 111 S.Ct. at 2208-09 (citing Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988)).
However, the Miranda- Edwards right to counsel must be invoked in order to effect the Edwards prohibition against further interrogation by the police. See Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85.
The rule of [Edwards ] applies only when the suspect "ha[s] expressed " his wish for the particular sort of lawyerly assistance that is the subject of Miranda. ... It requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.
McNeil, 501 U.S. at 178, 111 S.Ct. at 2209 (emphasis in original) (quoting Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. at 1885). The invocation of the right to counsel must be unambiguous: The suspect "must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney." Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2355, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994).
Further, this court has held that the Miranda- Edwards right to counsel must be personally invoked by the subject. In State v. Hanson, 136 Wis.2d 195, 213, 401 N.W.2d 771 (1987), a suspect, Hanson, had been injured during the course of a murder and was placed in a hospital room. Hanson's parents contacted an attorney, who agreed to represent their son. Id. at 203, 401 N.W.2d 771. The attorney informed police officers that he represented Hanson; upon being told that Hanson was not allowed visitors, the attorney provided the police with a written request that Hanson not be interrogated without the attorney present. Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
... ... 922, 108 S.Ct. 1093, 99 L.Ed.2d 255 (1988) (White, J., with whom Brennan, J., joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari) ... 6 We note that the critical facts in this case are readily distinguishable from those we encountered in our recent decision, State v. Coerper, 199 Wis.2d 216, 544 N.W.2d 423 (1996) in which the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment was not implicated because the defendant never personally asserted this right ... 7 The Court's language implies that the outcome might have been different if Tucker had asserted his right to have ... ...
-
State v. Dagnall
... ... Id. at ¶ 17. First, in assessing a circuit court's decision in a suppression matter, we apply a deferential, or clearly erroneous, standard to the circuit court's findings of evidentiary or historical facts. Id. at ¶ 18; State v. Coerper, 199 Wis. 2d 216, 221-22, 544 N.W.2d 423 (1996) ... Second, we review the court's application of constitutional principles to the historical facts. Martwick, 2000 WI 5, ¶ 17 ... On this second question, we are not bound by the determination of the circuit court. State v. Kramar, 149 Wis. 2d 767, ... ...
-
State v. Markwardt
... ... United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), into Wisconsin jurisprudence with respect to a suspect's invocation of the right to counsel. State v. Ross, 203 Wis.2d 66, 75, 552 N.W.2d 428 (Ct.App.1996) (referencing Davis and State v. Coerper, 199 Wis.2d 216, 223, 544 N.W.2d 423 (1996)) ... 8. We do not discuss State v. Goetsch, 186 Wis.2d 1, 519 N.W.2d 634 (Ct.App.1994), in the relevant law section but address it in footnote in order to answer concerns about the relevance of this case to Markwardt's case. The State expresses ... ...
-
State v. Ross
... ... Wisconsin courts have merged the Davis "clear articulation rule" into Wisconsin jurisprudence with respect to a suspect's invocation of the right to counsel. See State v. Coerper, 199 Wis.2d 216, 223, 544 N.W.2d 423, 426 (1996). 2 Yet no court in this state has spoken on whether the rule also applies to a suspect's invocation of the right to remain silent. Thus, we are presented with an issue of first impression. 3 ... Following the nearly unanimous lead ... ...