State v. Deal

• Citation: 866 N.W.2d 141
• Decision Date: 24 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 27185.,27185.
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. David DEAL, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota

866 N.W.2d 141

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
David DEAL, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 27185.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs April 20, 2015.
Decided June 24, 2015.

866 N.W.2d 143

Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Bethany L. Erickson, Assistant Attorney General, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellee.

A. Jason Rumpca of Peterson, Stuart, Rumpca & Rasmussen, Prof., LLC, Beresford, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.

Opinion

WILBUR, Justice.

¶ 1.] David Deal was convicted of first-degree rape and sexual contact with a child under the age of 16. Deal alleges that the circuit court committed reversible error when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion to suppress statements in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm.

Background

[¶ 2.] In August of 2013, Deal hosted a hog roast at his cabin outside of Vermillion, South Dakota. L.S.S. attended the hog roast with his daughter L.S., age seven at the time, and her younger sister N.S. L.S.S. was going through a separation with his wife, A.S., at the time. During the weeks following the hog roast, L.S. began exhibiting changes in her behavior. A.S. received phone calls “a couple times a week” from L.S.'s first-grade teacher regarding her behavior. Her teacher mentioned that L.S. was becoming more aggressive and demanded attention at school. Previously, when L.S. was in kindergarten, A.S. never “had an issue” or “had to talk to the teacher” about L.S.

[¶ 3.] On November 26, 2013, L.S. got in trouble at school. L.S. explained to A.S. that nothing happened and that she was fine. Later that evening, A.S. told her boyfriend, R.E., that children can act out after being molested. R.E. asked A.S. if she would like him to talk with L.S., and she said, “[Y]ou can give it a try.” He asked L.S. if her classmates were being mean to her or if any adults were mistreating her. He then asked her if any person had given her a “bad hug.” She answered “yes.” He asked her who gave her a “bad hug,” and she said “Dave.” R.E. informed A.S. what L.S. shared with him about David Deal. In a subsequent conversation, L.S. told A.S. that Deal put his hand down her pants and digitally penetrated her. A.S. immediately called law enforcement and reported the incident. A.S. then called Deal and confronted him about the allegation. Deal denied touching L.S.

[¶ 4.] The next day on November 27, 2013, Chief Deputy Jerami West met with A.S. and L.S. at the Child Advocacy Center in Sioux City, Iowa. L.S. underwent a forensic interview where she described the incident to the interviewer. L.S. stated

[866 N.W.2d 144

that on the night of the incident, everyone was sitting around a fire pit outside of Deal's cabin. She went inside the cabin by herself to use the bathroom. On her way to the bathroom, Deal grabbed her and put his hand down her pants and touched her genital area. She told him to stop and he refused. L.S. then hit him on his back or stomach and ran into the bathroom and shut the door. She said Deal knocked on the door and shouted, “[O]pen this door.” She described the bathroom door as having a “lock that you twist.” At trial, Deal presented photographs of the sliding bathroom door and L.S. acknowledged that there was no lock on the sliding door.

¶ 5.] Law enforcement officers unsuccessfully attempted to contact Deal over the course of the next few days. On the following Monday, December 2, 2013, officers learned that Deal had not shown up to work. The officers were told that this was unusual. Based on this information, law enforcement officers performed a welfare check at Deal's home, but he was not there. The next morning, Deal was found at the bottom of the river bluff near a park in Vermillion. He was found alive, lying in the snow with his face swollen and his left eye nearly swollen shut, bruises and scrapes on his body, and superficial cuts to both wrists. He was missing his cell phone, one of his shoes, his driver's license, and his glasses. Deal was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit at Avera Hospital in Sioux Falls for treatment of his injuries.

[¶ 6.] While Deal was being treated at the hospital, law enforcement executed a search warrant of his home to investigate what happened to him and to attempt to discover any evidence of a crime or struggle that would explain Deal's condition. Inside the house, law enforcement officers found evidence that suggested Deal attempted suicide. Near Deal's bathtub, which was half full of water, was a box cutter, assorted razor blades, a sock filled with broken glass, two empty bottles of Tylenol, a bottle of whiskey, a can of air duster, and a laptop computer displaying a family picture. The State presented this evidence to the jury along with a jury instruction stating that an attempt to commit suicide can be considered as tending to prove Deal's consciousness of guilt.

[¶ 7.] On December 13, 2013, a Clay County Grand Jury indicted Deal on the charge of first-degree rape in violation of SDCL 22–22–1(1). That same day, Avera Hospital released Deal. West traveled to Deal's home that afternoon and knocked on his front door. West and Deal talked for a short while on the front porch. Noticing that Deal was cold and shaking, West suggested they continue the discussion in his patrol car where it was warmer. West sat in the driver's seat and Deal sat in the front passenger seat for the remainder of the interview. The conversation continued in the patrol car. There was no indication that the patrol car was locked. The dash camera in the patrol car recorded the conversation, but because the camera was pointed in the opposite direction, the camera only recorded audio of the conversation. West testified at trial as to Deal's demeanor during the conversation.

[¶ 8.] West's initial questions focused on Deal's well-being, his treatment at the hospital, and his recollection of the circumstances leading to his hospitalization. After these initial questions, West stated that he was “changing gears” and proceeded to read Deal each of his Miranda rights. Deal acknowledged his understanding of each right. West then asked Deal if he wished to waive these rights. Deal paused and did not answer immediately. He eventually said, “Well, I don't know, I guess I don't really know what we are talking about.” West again inquired if

[866 N.W.2d 145

Deal wished to talk, to which Deal responded, “I guess so.”

¶ 9.] West questioned Deal about the items found in his home that according to West, tended to suggest an attempted suicide. Eventually, West told Deal that he thought the reason Deal attempted suicide was because of the phone call Deal received from A.S. about L.S. West then questioned Deal about the rape. Deal made no verbal admissions to sexual contact or rape. At trial, West testified about Deal's physical response, including tearing up, shaking, and nervousness in response to these questions. After the interview, West placed Deal under arrest. West was aware of Deal's indictment on the charge of rape and had a warrant in hand to arrest Deal for that offense at the time of the interview.

[¶ 10.] Deal filed a motion to suppress all statements, confessions, or admissions that he made to West on December 13, 2013. Deal also moved to suppress all evidence gathered as a result of the questioning, including his demeanor and body language observed by West. Deal contended that the statements, confessions, and admissions were elicited from him while he was “in custody pursuant to an interrogation when [he] did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights to remain silent or to request the assistance of an attorney.” The circuit court denied the motion. At trial, Deal asked the court to enter judgment of acquittal. The court also denied this motion. On May 13, 2014, a jury found Deal guilty of first-degree rape in violation of SDCL 22–22–1(1) and sexual contact with a child under the age of 16 in violation of SDCL 22–22–7. The court sentenced Deal to the South Dakota State Penitentiary. The court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the court's denial of Deal's motion to suppress statements. Deal appeals and raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Deal's motion to suppress statements in violation of Miranda.

2. Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Deal's motion for judgment of acquittal.

Analysis

[¶ 11.] 1. Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Deal's motion to suppress statements in violation of Miranda.

[¶ 12.] Deal contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. He asserts that he was in custody at the time of his interview, he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights, and West's observations were testimonial. However, the circuit court concluded that West was not required to read Deal his Miranda warnings because “a reasonable person in [Deal's] situation would feel at liberty to leave” and, therefore, he was not in...