State v. Figgins, WD
| Decision Date | 18 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 839 S.W.2d 630 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Kenneth FIGGINS, Respondent. 45273. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Albert A. Riederer, Pros. Atty., Robert Frager, Asst. Pros. Atty., Kansas City, for appellant.
Mary D. Curtis, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and KENNEDY and SMART, JJ.
On September 8, 1988, the defendant Figgins was arrested on a charge of felony escape. He was then taken to the Raytown Police Department for questioning. Before the questioning began, his tennis shoes were seized. The police seized them in order to make a shoe print comparison with the footprint left at the scene of a murder they were investigating. A knife seized from Figgins was compared with knife cuts made on a screen window at the scene of the crime. The questioning began at 9:47 p.m. on September 8, 1988, and lasted until 11:18 p.m. on September 9, 1988, at which time the defendant confessed his role in several crimes in the Raytown area. Figgins now stands accused of one count of murder in the first degree, five counts of burglary in the first degree, four counts of armed criminal action, and one count of stealing a motor vehicle.
Figgins brought a motion to suppress statements and physical evidence. The trial court sustained the motion and ordered suppressed Figgins' statements to the police and certain items of evidence seized by them. The state through the prosecuting attorney appeals the order of suppression. § 547.200.1, RSMo 1986.
The motion to suppress asserted six specific grounds. 1 The order to suppress rests upon grounds two and three Two, the defendant invoked his right to remain silent and this request was not scrupulously honored.
Three, the defendant invoked his right to an attorney and such request was not scrupulously honored.
An area metro squad was formed on September 6, 1988, following a series of burglaries in the Raytown area and the homicide of Donald Frank Benedict. Figgins became a target of the investigation as they followed some leads in the case, including a car chase in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night of the homicide involving the police and Figgins' closest known associate, Al Crawford. Detective Stan Pierson of the Raytown Police Department was assigned to find and interview Figgins. Pierson learned that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Figgins for escape from the Kansas City Honor Farm. Pierson and members of the metro squad attempted to get in touch with Figgins, and left messages wherever they went for him to be in touch with them.
It was the testimony of Detective Pierson that on the afternoon of September 7, 1988, Figgins called him and said that he was "familiar with the fact" that an incident had occurred in Raytown involving Al Crawford and a car chase and a burglary. Figgins said also that he was not aware that there had also been a homicide. Figgins told Pierson that "he would attempt to find out further information regarding what Al had been up to" and was interested to know if Pierson could prevent his return to custody under the escape warrant. Pierson replied that he would see "if that was a realistic possibility." Pierson then arranged for the telephone line at the Raytown station to be traced in case Figgins called again.
The telephone call from Figgins came through at 7:15 p.m. on the following day from a drug store. Figgins was seized there, handcuffed and advised of his rights. An arresting officer, metro squad member Jackson County Deputy Sheriff Richberg, testified that Figgins was arrested for "the investigation of a possible homicide, for questioning in that case." It was deputy Richberg who observed Figgins enter the drug store before the capture. He alerted the other metro squad officers by walkie-talkie that "[t]he possible suspect is here in the store." Officer Willoughby, another member of the metro squad at the arrest, testified that Figgins was then "being treated as a suspect" in that investigation. The pocket knife which was a subject of the suppression motion was taken from Figgins during a search of his person upon his arrest.
It was the testimony of Raytown Detective Pierson that after the arrest he received a message on his radio from one of the arresting officers that Figgins wanted to talk with Pierson, that Figgins had "tentatively made an arrangement" with Pierson. Pierson was instructed to return to the Raytown police headquarters to speak with Figgins. At the first contact between them at the police station, Pierson asked Figgins for his shoes. Pierson and Officer Freemyer then proceeded to interview Figgins. He was again advised under Miranda but refused to sign a waiver form. Figgins acknowledged nevertheless that he understood his legal rights under Miranda.
At the virtual outset of the interrogation, Figgins asked Pierson: Pierson replied: "You're not the only person's shoe we're taking in regard to this matter." Figgins asked again: "Why, you think I have something to do with it?" Pierson responded that they were there "to find out." And, if so, "to what degree." Figgins told Pierson that "I ain't got no business talking, I didn't have nothing to do with it." Figgins added, "I can help you man, if you work with me." He asked, "If you ain't going to work with me ... does it make any sense to say anything?" Figgins said again: "If I'm a suspect in a murder case, it doesn't make any sense for me to open my mouth." To that Pierson responded: "You're the only one that knows what participation you may have in the whole damn thing." Figgins asked again: "Am I being charged The interview broke shortly thereafter at 10:05 p.m. and resumed forty-five minutes later at 10:50 p.m. The other officer, Freemyer then entered the interrogation with "Tell us what you know." Figgins responded: "I don't know." Then followed a repartee with Figgins insisting he would not talk unless he was "going to get something out of it," and Freemyer and Pierson telling him that all they knew was that the authorities indicated "they would listen" if Figgins cooperated in the investigation. Freemyer said that if Figgins told them "what you know," they would know "how much help we can give you." Pierson then asked: "Are you the one that actually pulled the trigger, is that the problem here?" Figgins answered, "I ain't shot nobody, brother ..." Pierson responded, "You're not the number one guy?" Figgins answered, "I was with nobody when they shot nobody." Figgins then asked to speak to his father and complained again that he wanted his shoes back. Figgins asked to be returned to his cell, and that interrogation ended. It was then 11:40 p.m.
with anything?" He then complained about his shoes having been taken by the police. The interchange continued in that vein. Pierson asking why Figgins was hesitating in telling what he knew, and Figgins replying that he knew "a bunch of things" about those and other offenses, but before he "talked" he wanted the assurance that he would not be returned to jail under the escape warrant. Pierson then suggested that he could expedite [transcribed "extradite"] the whole matter without more hesitation: "it's just that we've got to cut out the bullshit and proceed." Figgins commenced to talk about what "the guy" told him the night before, that all the police "got is M.O. of a burglary." He added, "I ain't did nothing. If you think I did something, then I'm, I'm shutting up, and I want to see a lawyer, you know."
This initial interview was recorded on tape.
The interview was resumed at 11:15 a.m. on the next day, September 9, 1988, and ended at 1:00 p.m. Only the first twenty minutes of that session were recorded. Pierson gave the Miranda warning orally and Figgins acknowledged that he understood it. The questioning started with: "Did Crawford send you back for this gun?" To which Figgins responded: "I don't know nothin' about all that." He then asked if Figgins had any way of putting himself at another location to head this off. Figgins told them he was with his wife and father the night of the shooting, except for a couple of hours. Figgins told them that during that time he "went riding around" in Crawford's vehicle. [He had driven it briefly some days earlier.] To that, Pierson commented: "Okay, that would explain why your fingerprints were in the Buick." Figgins continued to deny that he was in Raytown at the time of the shooting and insisted that he had "nothing to do with it."
Freemyer then asked Figgins for an impression of his teeth in order to eliminate him as a suspect "in this homicide." Figgins repeated what his father had told him, "Don't say nothing until you go on trial and see a lawyer." Freemyer answered: "That certainly is your option." Freemyer asked: "If you are really innocent why not give us the impressions." Figgins then replied: "You are all trying to get me for a murder, that's my life you're playing with now." Pierson followed up: "Let me ask you something, are you trying to tell us you are in the position to where you can't say it because ... I can't think of a way to say it without saying it, because you are involved in a homicide?" Figgins denied he was involved in a homicide, and added: "I can't see myself even talking to you all anymore because you all are steady [sic] trying to burn me and I ain't did nothing." Pierson responded: "Burn or eliminate ... either way ... where did you guys [Figgins and Crawford] go when you went running around?"
Figgins answered. He told them, however, that he was "not signing nothing else." Nevertheless, the interview went on and when asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McBenge
...were burglarized discovered home was ransacked, dirty dishes were in the sink, and food was left on the table); State v. Figgins, 839 S.W.2d 630, 631, 634 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (police suspected defendant took bites of hot dog at scene of burglary and murder).20 Because the State provided te......
-
State v. Vinson
...State v. Feltrop, 803 S.W.2d 1, 12 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1262, 111 S.Ct. 2918, 115 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991); State v. Figgins, 839 S.W.2d 630, 636 (Mo.App.1992). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the facts and reasonable inferences are taken in the light most favorable......
-
State v. McBenge
...were burglarized discovered home was ransacked, dirty dishes were in the sink, and food was left on the table); State v. Figgins, 839 S.W.2d 630, 631, 634 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (police suspected defendant took bites of hot dog at scene of burglary and murder).22 Because the State provided te......
-
Scroggins v. State, WD
...is imputed to other state actors, i.e., the prosecuting attorney, regardless of whether there is actual knowledge. See State v. Figgins, 839 S.W.2d 630, 638 (Mo.App.1992).4 The claim in Scroggins' second amended motion is identical to that made in his motion to withdraw guilty plea which wa......