State v. Conley

• Decision Date: 20 January 1998
• Docket Number: No. 970092,970092
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lundy CONLEY, Defendant and Appellant. Criminal
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 569

574 N.W.2d 569

1998 ND 5

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lundy CONLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Criminal No. 970092.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Jan. 20, 1998.

Rick Lee Volk (argued), Assistant State's Attorney, Bismarck, for plaintiff and appellee.

Gregory Ian Runge (argued), Bismarck, for defendant and appellant.

MESCHKE, Justice.

¶1 Prisoner Lundy Conley appealed from a criminal judgment entered on a conditional guilty plea to possession of contraband useful for escape from prison. We conclude Conley was in custody when twice questioned at the prison, but he was not informed of his constitutional rights, so incriminating statements made by him cannot be admitted at his criminal trial. We reverse and remand to allow Conley an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea.

I

¶2 Conley is an inmate at the State Penitentiary. In Conley's work area, prison officials found a blank State Penitentiary visitor's pass, a Heartview Foundation employee identification card bearing another person's name, and a laminated identification card with Conley's picture on it bearing another person's name and the warden's signature. Because of these items found in his work area, Conley was placed in an administrative detention cell in the orientation unit of the Penitentiary.

¶3 State Penitentiary Captain Brian Jorgenson investigated the incident and decided to talk to Conley. Prison guards brought Conley in handcuffs, per prison policy, from the detention cell to a staff office to meet with Jorgenson. They told Conley Jorgenson was in the office and had requested Conley come to see him.

¶4 Jorgenson and Conley, still handcuffed, sat across from each other with a desk between them. The door to the office was left open, and Jorgenson and Conley were the only two persons in the room. Jorgenson told Conley about the incident report, showed Conley a copy of it, and asked Conley to read it. Jorgenson testified that during this type of interview he would ask prisoners "if they have anything they want to say about the incident, whether they deny the incident or they say it's accurate, and let them know that I'm not the one finding them guilty or innocent on the report, but I'm just gathering the information for the adjustment committee if it goes to the adjustment committee." Jorgenson asked Conley questions about the incident, and Conley did not ask to leave during the 20 to 25 minute interview. After the interview, Jorgenson reviewed with Conley a notice of disciplinary hearing and gave him a copy.

¶5 An adjustment committee hearing was later held in an office in the prison orientation unit next to the office where Jorgenson had interviewed Conley. Sean Conway, a case manager at the Penitentiary, chaired the meeting, and Mark Molesworth, a member of the adjustment committee, also attended. Charles Shumaker, an orientation unit immediate supervisor, attended the meeting as Conley's staff representative. Conley was again brought from the detention cell in handcuffs to the hearing room where he remained handcuffed during the hearing, per prison policy.

¶6 At the start of the hearing, Conway gave Conley a form titled "Inmate Rights and Responsibilities When Before Adjustment Committee" that included advice to Conley: "You have the right to be present throughout this committee hearing" and "You have the right to remain silent. [A]nything you say may be used against you in our recommendations to the Warden." Conley reviewed the form and signed it without asking any questions. Conway then read the incident report to Conley and asked him whether the report was accurate. Conley replied the report was accurate and, during the proceeding, he admitted to possessing and manufacturing the items found at his work area.

¶7 Later, Conley was criminally charged with violating NDCC 12.1-08-09 by possessing contraband useful for escape from detention. Conley moved to suppress the statements he made to prison officials because he had not been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Conley's suppression motion. The court found Conley was not "in custody" during the initial interview with Jorgenson or at the adjustment committee hearing. The court reasoned, under the totality of the circumstances, "a reasonable person first of all would not think that they had to remain either in the interview or in the adjustment hearing, and that there was not an interrogation in the sense intended or discussed in the Miranda decision and its subsequent cases." Conley then entered a conditional plea of guilty under NDRCrimP 11(a)(2), reserving his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.

II

¶8 We affirm a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress unless, after resolving conflicting evidence in favor of affirmance, we conclude there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision, or unless we conclude the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Hawley, 540 N.W.2d 390, 392 (N.D.1995). While we generally defer to the trial court's findings of fact on the circumstances of an interrogation, the ultimate question of whether a suspect is in custody and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Eldred, 1997 ND 112, p 9, 564 N.W.2d 283. As we said in State v. Martin, 543 N.W.2d 224, 226 (N.D.1996), the trial court's ultimate determination that questioning is investigatory in nature and not custodial is fully reviewable on appeal.

A

¶9 In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held the prosecution cannot use statements stemming from the custodial interrogation of an accused unless it shows procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Custodial interrogation is "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612 (footnote omitted). Adequate procedural safeguards exist when the interrogating officer gives the now-familiar Miranda warnings.

¶10 Miranda warnings are required only when the accused is in custody or is otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant way. Id. But Miranda warnings arose out of a concern for the inherent coerciveness that exists in situations where suspects, previously at liberty, are cut off from the outside world and placed in an antagonistic police-dominated environment. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 457-58, 86 S.Ct. at 1618-19. These concerns decrease where officials question someone who is already serving a prison sentence. Because prisoner interrogation does not lend itself to easy analysis under the traditional formulations of the Miranda rule, a unique body of caselaw has developed about the need for Miranda warnings in a prison setting.

B

¶11 In Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), the Supreme Court held incriminating statements made by a prison inmate to an Internal Revenue agent during in-prison questioning about possible criminal tax violations were inadmissible at the inmate's criminal trial. The government attempted to distinguish Miranda in the prison setting by arguing the custody the inmate faced at the time of questioning had arisen from another crime. The Court summarily rejected the argument, reasoning "[t]hese differences are too minor and shadowy to justify a departure from the well-considered conclusions of Miranda with reference to warnings to be given to a person held in custody." Mathis, 391 U.S. at 4, 88 S.Ct. at 1504-05. Still, most courts have refused to construe Mathis as creating a per se rule requiring Miranda warnings before any investigatory questioning of an inmate inside a prison.

¶12 One of the leading cases in this area of the law declared a per se rule "would not only be inconsistent with Miranda but would torture it to the illogical position of providing greater protection to a prisoner than to his nonimprisoned counterpart." Cervantes v. Walker, 589 F.2d 424, 427 (9th Cir.1978). At 429, Cervantes teaches that, to determine whether a prison inmate is in custody within the principles of Miranda, an "added imposition on [the inmate's] freedom of movement" is necessary. Many opinions have used this standard. See particularly, Leviston v. Black, 843 F.2d 302, 304 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 865, 109 S.Ct. 168, 102 L.Ed.2d 138 (1988). See also United States v. Cheely, 36 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 253, 139 L.Ed.2d 181 (1997); Garcia v. Singletary, 13 F.3d 1487, 1490-91 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 908, 115 S.Ct. 276, 130 L.Ed.2d 193 (1994); United States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 830, 107 S.Ct. 114, 93 L.Ed.2d 61 (1986); United States v. Scalf, 725 F.2d 1272, 1276 (10th Cir.1984); United States v. Vasquez, 889 F.Supp. 171, 175 (M.D.Pa.1995); State v. Deases, 518 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Iowa 1994); People v. Patterson, 146 Ill.2d 445, 167 Ill.Dec. 1045, 588 N.E.2d 1175, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 838, 113 S.Ct. 116, 121 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992); Whitfield v. State, 287 Md. 124, 411 A.2d 415, 424-26, cert. denied, 446 U.S. 993, 100 S.Ct. 2980, 64 L.Ed.2d 850 (1980). Applying this standard, courts have reached divergent results when considering whether a prisoner is in custody for Miranda purposes when questioned in a prison setting. Compare Annot., What constitutes "custodial interrogation" within rule of Miranda v Arizona requiring that suspect be informed of his federal constitutional rights before custodial interrogation, 31 A.L.R.3d 565, § 16[a] and [b] (1970), and cases there collected. Incarceration does not automatically make an inmate in custody for Miranda purposes. Some added restriction on the inmate's freedom of...