State v. Dagnall
| Decision Date | 06 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-2746-CR.,98-2746-CR. |
| Citation | 236 Wis.2d 339,612 N.W.2d 680,2000 WI 82 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Todd D. DAGNALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by James M. Freimuth, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the defendant-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by John D. Lubarsky, assistant state public defender.
¶ 1.
The State of Wisconsin (State) seeks review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Dagnall, 228 Wis. 2d 495, 596 N.W.2d 482 (Ct. App. 1999). The court of appeals reversed a decision of the Circuit Court for Dane County, Patrick J. Fiedler, Judge, denying the motion of Todd D. Dagnall (Dagnall) to suppress incriminating statements he made to detectives. The circuit court held that the statements were not obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment because Dagnall had not personally, unambiguously, and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel prior to answering questions. After his motion was denied, Dagnall pled no contest to the charge of first-degree intentional homicide by use of a dangerous weapon, as party to the crime.
¶ 2. Dagnall later appealed the judgment of conviction, challenging the decision to deny his suppression motion. He argued that a letter from his attorney to the sheriff's department, acknowledging that Dagnall had been arrested in Florida and directing that no one should question Dagnall about the homicide, as well as Dagnall's own remark to detectives that, "My lawyer told me that I shouldn't talk to you guys," constituted a proper invocation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the judgment. The court held that Dagnall's remark, when considered together with the admonitions in the attorney's letter and the detectives' conceded awareness of that letter, would lead a reasonable police officer to understand that Dagnall was invoking the right to counsel. The court therefore remanded the cause to the circuit court for trial or further proceedings with directions to grant Dagnall's motion to suppress the statements elicited by the detectives.
¶ 3. The State presents one issue for review, whether Dagnall properly invoked the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Stated this way, the issue presupposes that one must "invoke" the right to counsel to give it effect, even after an attorney has been "retained." We also address a corollary to the central issue, whether a defendant who has counsel may waive the right to counsel by talking to detectives after receiving Miranda warnings.
¶ 4. We hold that Dagnall was not required to invoke the right to counsel in this case because he had been formally charged with a crime and counsel had been retained to represent him on that charge. Because Dagnall was an accused person under the Sixth Amendment who had an attorney to represent him on the specific crime charged, and because the attorney had informed the police of his representation of Dagnall and admonished them not to question his client about that crime, any subsequent questioning about that crime was improper. In addition, we conclude that Dagnall did not waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by talking to the detectives after he had been given the Miranda warnings. We therefore hold that, under these facts, Dagnall's motion to suppress the inculpatory statements should have been granted. For these reasons and the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
¶ 5. The facts relevant to this appeal are not in dispute. On October 14, 1997, the Dane County District Attorney's office issued a criminal complaint charging Dagnall with one count of first-degree intentional homicide, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.01(1). The complaint alleged that on October 13 Dagnall and another individual, Christopher E. Murray, entered the residence of Norman G. Gross in the Village of DeForest and beat Gross to death with baseball bats. The circuit court found probable cause to believe that Dagnall committed the crime and authorized a warrant for his arrest. Dagnall was promptly arrested in Fort Myers, Florida, at the request of the Dane County Sheriff's Department.
¶ 6. That same day, October 14, Madison Attorney James H. Connors delivered a letter to the sheriff's department, in which he stated:
To Whom It May Concern:
¶ 7. The following day, October 15, two officers, Kevin Hughes (Hughes) of the sheriff's department and Nick Tomlin (Tomlin) of the Village of DeForest, traveled to Florida, where they contacted Dagnall at the Lee County Jail. Detective Hughes later testified that he was aware that the sheriff's department had received the letter from Attorney Connors, but he did not believe the letter barred him from initiating a conversation with Dagnall because only a defendant "can exercise his constitutional rights."
¶ 8. Hughes explained that in questioning Dagnall, he hoped Dagnall would provide a statement about the homicide. Hughes candidly stated that he wanted "to try to get him to talk about the case."
¶ 9. The detectives informed Dagnall that their purpose was to question him about the homicide. Hughes recalled his impression of Dagnall, stating, Hughes conceded that Dagnall remarked, "My lawyer told me that I shouldn't talk to you guys."
¶ 10. The October 14 criminal complaint described Detective Hughes as having interviewed Christopher Murray and having secured from him a statement that he and Dagnall went to the residence of Norman Gross, where both of them hit Gross with baseball bats. In Florida the next day, Hughes and Tomlin:
explained to [Dagnall] that we ha[d] been conducting interviews and talking to other people regarding the homicide and that it was his decision as to whether or not he wanted to talk to us and we would like to read him his rights, and after he heard his rights, he could make a decision as to whether or not he wished to provide a statement.
Hughes told Dagnall that the detectives were interested in obtaining his account of what took place, and that it was Dagnall's decision whether or not to talk to them. Hughes read the Miranda rights to Dagnall,1 and then asked Dagnall, "Realizing that you have these rights, are you now willing to answer questions or make a statement?" Hughes testified that Dagnall said he "would talk to us until he felt that he would be at a point where he would discriminate [sic] against himself."2
¶ 11. The detectives questioned Dagnall for slightly more than one hour. During this interview, Dagnall never requested an attorney. The detectives made no promises or threats.
¶ 12. On October 16, the detectives again spoke with Dagnall, this time while they waited with Dagnall at the Fort Myers airport for a flight that would transport Dagnall back to Wisconsin. Hughes asked Dagnall if he would answer some additional questions about the homicide. Hughes again read Dagnall the Miranda rights, and Dagnall indicated that he understood the rights and would answer questions. The interview lasted ten minutes.
¶ 13. That same day, after flying to Madison, the detectives spoke once again with Dagnall. While being transported to the Dane County Jail at 10:40 p.m., according to Hughes, Dagnall explained that he believed his lawyer "would be mad at him for speaking" to the detectives, but he stated that "he was glad he told [the detectives] his version of the story." Dagnall said he felt it was necessary for him to give his version, because he was aware that the police had obtained information from others involved in the incident.
¶ 14. The next day, October 17, Hughes met with Dagnall at 7:40 a.m. in the Dane County Jail. Hughes advised Dagnall he had more questions because additional information about the investigation had been brought to his attention. Dagnall responded by asking whether Attorney Connors was aware that Dagnall was in town. When Detective Hughes replied that he "didn't know," he recalled that Dagnall said "it would probably be best to have his attorney present." No further questioning occurred, and Dagnall was returned to his cell.
¶ 15. On October 17, 1997, the district attorney's office filed an amended complaint, charging Dagnall with first-degree intentional homicide by use of a dangerous weapon as a party to the crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.01(1), 939.63(1)(a)2, and 939.05, and burglary while armed with a dangerous weapon as a party to the crime, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 943.10(1)(a), 943.10(2)(a), and 939.05.
¶ 16. After the court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf, Dagnall filed a motion seeking to suppress the incriminating statements he made to the detectives during the three interviews. Dagnall claimed the detectives violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when they questioned him after the sheriff's department received notice that Attorney Connors represented Dagnall.
¶ 17. The circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing to decide the suppression motion.3 It found that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attached on October 14, the date on which authorities filed the criminal complaint; but it denied the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioner v. Peterson
...the importance of the spirit of the law, see Jackson County v. DNR, 2006 WI 96, ¶ 32, 293 Wis.2d 497, 717 N.W.2d 713 ; State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, ¶ 59, 236 Wis.2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680 ; Harrington v. Smith, 28 Wis. 43, 59 (1871).9 Wis. Stat. § 11.001(1) (emphasis added).10 See majority op......
-
State v. Forbush
...the court of appeals concluded that the circuit court's holding was based entirely on this court's conclusions in State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, 236 Wis.2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680, and that Dagnall was effectively overruled by Montejo , the court of appeals reversed the circuit court's suppre......
-
State v. Darby
...is of such fundamental importance that it attaches automatically at the commencement of adversary proceedings against a defendant, State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, ¶ 30, 236 Wis.2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680; non-waiver is presumed and waiver must be affirmatively shown to be knowing, intelligent, an......
-
State v. DeLao
...7 crimes after she had been charged with these crimes 20 days earlier and had already received a preliminary examination. 16. In State v. Dagnall, 2000 WI 82, ¶ 53, 236 Wis. 2d 339, 612 N.W.2d 680, this court discussed a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel after being charged with ......