State v. Galli
| Decision Date | 16 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | 960122,960123,Nos. 960018,s. 960018 |
| Citation | 967 P.2d 930,345 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 |
| Parties | 345 Utah Adv. Rep. 7 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Adam B. GALLI, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Jan Graham, Att'y Gen., Laura Dupaix, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff.
Lisa J. Remal, Linda M. Jones, Salt Lake City, for defendant.
Defendant Adam B. Galli entered conditional pleas of guilty to charges of aggravated robbery in three separate cases before separate trial judges. All three cases have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. On appeal, Galli contends that (1) the three trial courts erred in failing to suppress his confession to police; (2) Judge Pat B. Brian erred in ordering him to pay restitution to his family for amounts they forfeited when he jumped bail; and (3) Judges Glenn K. Iwasaki and Kenneth Rigtrup erred in ordering him to serve consecutive prison sentences. We consider each of these assignments of error below.
In 1992, Galli committed a string of armed robberies in Salt Lake City with his brother, Aaron Galli, and two cousins, Nathan and Christopher Galli. On April 29, 1992, Galli and his two cousins, Nathan and Christopher robbed the King's English Bookstore. Galli and Christopher went inside the bookstore while Nathan waited outside for the purpose of running interference if Galli and Christopher were pursued by police. Galli pointed a gun 1 at the store clerk and took approximately $250 in cash from the two cash registers 2 at the store.
On May 5, 1992, Galli and Christopher, armed with handguns, robbed the Trolley Corners Theaters. While Galli and Christopher were inside the theater, Aaron and Nathan waited outside in a separate car to keep lookout. When a witness ran out of the theater after Galli and Christopher, Nathan pulled up and told the witness to call the police while he pursued the robbers and obtained their license plate number. Galli and his accomplices took over $900 in cash from the theaters.
On June 6, 1992, Galli, disguised in a black wig, entered the Tool Shed and pointed a gun at the store clerk, Sylvia Nordoff. He said, "This is a stickup, give me all of your money or I'll kill you." When Ms. Nordoff refused to hand over the money, Galli grabbed nearly $180 in cash from the till and ran out of the store. Ms. Nordoff chased after him and tackled him just outside the store. Her son, Michael Nordoff, helped her hold Galli down. However, Christopher was waiting just outside the store. He threatened Ms. Nordoff and her son with a weapon and told them to let Galli go. Galli and Christopher ran to their car and fled. When witnesses attempted to pursue the two men, Nathan drove up and told them to call the police while he chased the robbers. Nathan later returned to the scene and gave false information to the police.
In June and July of 1992, Galli was charged with all three armed robberies and warrants for his arrest were issued. On July 10, 1992, he was arrested in King County, Washington. While being held in the King County Jail in Seattle, he was advised of his Miranda rights by two detectives from the Salt Lake City Police Department. He voluntarily waived his rights and agreed to talk to the detectives. During questioning, he incriminated himself and confessed to all three robberies.
In each case below, Galli moved to suppress his statements to the police. He contended that during questioning, he reinvoked both his right to counsel and his right to remain silent and that his confession was therefore obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Utah law. The judges in all three cases denied his motion to suppress.
Prior to his trial dates, Galli was released from jail after his family posted a bond for his release. However, in November 1992, he absconded from the state. His family forfeited nearly $40,000 in cash and real estate as a result of his flight from justice.
In August 1995, Galli was recaptured in Minnesota by authorities. Upon his return to Utah, he entered conditional pleas of guilty to charges of aggravated robbery and was sentenced in all three cases. 3 Judge Brian sentenced him to an indeterminate term of five years to life in prison and ordered him to pay $40,000 in restitution to his family for the money they forfeited when he absconded. Judge Iwasaki sentenced him to an indeterminate term of five years to life in prison with his sentence to run consecutively to Judge Brian's sentence. Judge Rigtrup also sentenced him to five years to life in prison with his sentence to run consecutively to the sentences imposed by Judge Brian and Judge Iwasaki.
We now turn to Galli's assignments of error.
The first question presented is whether the trial courts erred in failing to suppress Galli's confession to all three aggravated robberies. He contends that he reinvoked his Miranda rights during questioning and that the detectives refused to scrupulously honor those rights and terminate further questioning. He argues that his assertion was unequivocal and unambiguous but that even if his invocations of his Miranda rights were equivocal, the detectives were required to limit further discussion to clarifying questions only.
First, we must determine whether Galli at any time reinvoked his Miranda rights, equivocally or otherwise. After reviewing the taped recordings and transcripts of his confession, Judges Brian and Iwasaki found that he had not reinvoked either his right to counsel or right to remain silent during questioning. Judge Rigtrup did not rule on Galli's motion on the ground that Judge Brian's ruling precluded relitigation of the suppression issue under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Judge Rigtrup incorporated Judge Brian's findings, conclusions, and order into his own order.
We review the trial courts' factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. State v. Troyer, 910 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Utah 1995).
Galli contends that although he initially waived his Miranda rights, he reinvoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent early on during the interrogation. His argument relies on the following emphasized portions of his confession transcript:
....
(Emphasis added.) Galli asserts that the foregoing transcript shows that he reinvoked his Miranda rights during questioning and that the trial courts erred in failing to suppress his confession. We disagree.
Most jurisdictions have held that a suspect's request to speak to a prosecuting attorney is not equivalent to an invocation of the right to counsel under Miranda, equivocal or otherwise. See People v. Manges, 134 Mich.App. 49, 350 N.W.2d 829, 832 (1984) (); Riley v. State, 501 So.2d 551, 553 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (); United States v. Brown, 27 M.J. 614, 617 (A.C.M.R.1988) (); Trice v. State, 853 P.2d 203, 211 (Okla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burno v. U.S., No. 97-CF-1698.
...State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244, 257 (Tex.Crim.App.1996); State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930, 935 n. 4 (Utah 1998); State v. Bacon, 163 Vt. 279, 658 A.2d 54, 65 (1995); Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 250 Va. 262, 462 S.E.2d 112, 116 (1995); S......
-
State v. Griffin
..., 31 App. Div. 2d 724, 725, 297 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1968) ; State v. Jackson , 308 N.C. 549, 573, 304 S.E.2d 134 (1983) ; State v. Galli , 967 P.2d 930, 936 (Utah 1998) ; sometimes quite vehemently. See, e.g., United States v. Orso , 266 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th Cir. 2001) ("reprehensible"), cert. den......
-
State v. Apodaca, 20140774-CA
...defendant’s] free will and spirit.’ " Leiva-Perez , 2016 UT App 237, ¶ 22, 391 P.3d 287 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Galli , 967 P.2d 930, 936 (Utah 1998) ). "However, in certain cases, police misrepresentations may be sufficiently egregious to overcome a defendant’s will so a......
-
U.S. v. Beckwith
...However, that is not a request for counsel. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998) pp. 3-4 ("Likewise we hold that defendant's request to speak to a prosecutor does not constitute even an equivocal assertion of the ri......
-
FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED CONFESSIONS.
...identified him as perpetrator); Farmah v. State, 789 S.W.2d 665, 671-72 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990) (same). (79) See, e.g., State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930, 936 (Utah 1998) (falsely telling suspect all three accomplices implicated him when only one had); State v. Thaggard, 527 N.W.2d 804, 806, 810-11......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review – Revised [1]
...at 935- A trial court's findings of fact in a criminal bench trial are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. See State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930, 933 (Utah 1998); State v. Taylor, 947 P.2d 681, 685 (Utah 1997), cert, denied, 119 S.Ct. 89 (1998); City of Orem v. Lee, 846 P.2d 450,452 (Ut......