State v. Greathouse, 62229
| Decision Date | 09 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 62229,No. 1,62229,1 |
| Citation | 627 S.W.2d 592 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robin Scott GREATHOUSE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Richard T. Martin, Gainesville, for appellant.
John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
This is a direct appeal from a conviction for capital murder, Sec. 565.001, RSMo, with a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for fifty years. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Mo.Const. art. V, Sec. 3.
On Tuesday, September 5, 1978, citizens informed a Douglas County deputy sheriff, Jenkins, that Clayton Dawson might be missing. Dawson was a sixty-six year old man who lived in a trailer near Ava, Missouri, with his nephew whom he had raised since infancy. The nephew, Robin Scott Greathouse, 17 years old, called his uncle "dad." The last time the neighbors saw Dawson was on Thursday night, August 31. On Friday, a neighbor saw Dawson's truck leave the premises but did not see the driver. Dawson did not report or call in for work Friday, an unprecedented occurrence. From Friday through Tuesday, Robin answered inquiries about Dawson by saying that he had "left with some lady," and that he had gone to West Plains to visit a cousin. On Wednesday morning, Jenkins and another officer visited Dawson's trailer. Robin accompanied Jenkins and the other officer, Deputy Thurman, to the Sheriff's office in Ava where Robin admitted he had killed his uncle, and led several officers to the remains of the body and back to the trailer where he showed them the rifle and reenacted his version of the killing. According to Robin, he and his dad had a fight because Robin had not been going to school. His dad was going to give him a thrashing and he got scared and hit his dad with an ax and then, after fighting over a gun, shot him eight times.
The first of appellant's four claims on this appeal is that his statements to law enforcement officials should have been suppressed because the first of these statements was made before appellant was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The principal issue under this point is whether the statement in question was the product of "custodial interrogation" such that Miranda warnings were required to make it admissible. Id., 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.
The trial court could reasonably have found the relevant facts to be as follows: On September 5, 1978, when Clayton Dawson had not been seen by neighbors for five days, a neighbor contacted Deputy Lester Jenkins who also lived near Dawson and appellant and knew them both very well. The next morning (Wednesday, September 6), Jenkins and another deputy, Alva Thurman, went to the trailer where Dawson and appellant lived and, finding appellant there, asked him about Dawson. Appellant told the officers that Dawson had left at 5:00 a. m. the previous Friday in the company of a brown-haired woman of medium height driving a red 1975 or 1976 Buick Electra with the intent of getting married; that he was not supposed to tell anyone where they had gone and that, because they had been expected back on Tuesday or Wednesday (the day of appellant's statement was Wednesday), he "wished (he) did know" where they were at that moment. When Thurman noticed some paper-covered holes in the wall of the trailer, appellant said that he had "shot up the house" when he was drunk and that he didn't want his "dad" to see the holes when he came home. Jenkins asked appellant if he wanted to go into town with them to telephone the details of Dawson's absence to the Highway Patrol in Willow Springs for broadcast over their radio, and said that appellant didn't have to go unless he wanted to, to which appellant replied that he would go with them.
Shortly after appellant and Thurman arrived at the Sheriff's office, Thurman was required to leave to assist in the feeding of prisoners in the jail. Thurman told appellant that he could either wait in the front office or, since several people had been coming into the office to ask about Dawson's whereabouts, he could wait in the back, where there were some empty cells, commonly used for women and juveniles; appellant replied, "I'd rather go in the back if you've got a place." Thurman took appellant to an empty cell and locked the door behind him, not to keep appellant in but as a matter of jail policy because a prisoner had once escaped through that area. Appellant was told to "holler or knock on the walls" if he wanted anyone for anything. Sometime after Thurman had gone, Jenkins arrived at the office, unlocked the cell block door and took appellant to another room where they could talk. Jenkins said to appellant, "Robbie, I've been a good friend of you and your dad a long time ... I'd like for you to tell me where we can find your dad because ... (t)hat woman he went off with could have killed him or something." Jenkins further told appellant that Dawson's friends and neighbors were worried about him and reminded appellant that he had said Dawson was expected back Tuesday or Wednesday and it was now Wednesday afternoon. At this, appellant broke down crying and said, After this statement, Jenkins also broke down and left the room and appellant was not questioned further until after he had been advised of and waived his Miranda rights. When Thurman returned, Jenkins told him what had occurred and Thurman gave appellant his Miranda rights and took his statement. Twenty minutes later, a Highway Patrol Officer read him his rights and took his statement. Prior to appellant's unsolicited and voluntary statement, he was not suspected of any crime by either Jenkins or Thurman (as stated by Jenkins, "I just didn't think he'd do anything like that") and appellant was not under arrest or otherwise in custody.
Under the above facts, the statement by appellant was clearly not a product of custodial interrogation and no Miranda warnings were required to make it admissible. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda :
"By custodial interrogation, we mean 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." (Emphasis supplied)
Id., 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.
By necessary implication, custodial interrogation does not exist where the person questioned is not in custody because he is not even a suspect in the crime, State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981), State v. Overstreet, 551 S.W.2d 621, 628 (Mo. banc 1977), or, even assuming that he was a suspect, where he is not under arrest or otherwise restrained of his liberty. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 493-96, 97 S.Ct. 711, 713-14, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Both of these circumstances are absent in this case. The state's witnesses testified, and the trial court could reasonably have found, that deputies Jenkins and Thurman believed appellant's account of Dawson's absence, did not suspect him of any crime and invited him to the Sheriff's office only to provide them with details that would help in locating Dawson. See State v. Overstreet, supra, at 628. Moreover, regardless of the deputies' belief that appellant was not a suspect in any crime, it is clear that appellant was not deprived of his freedom by them in any significant way. Appellant's trip to the Sheriff's office was entirely a matter of his own volition, after he had been told that he could go to the office or stay home as he pleased. His brief and self-requested stay in a cell was not for incarceration purposes but to afford him privacy from persons who had been coming into the office inquiring about Clayton Dawson. There is every reasonable inference from this evidence that appellant could have left both the cell and the Sheriff's office at any time had he so desired.
In Oregon v. Mathiason, supra, the defendant, a parolee suspected in a burglary, was asked to come to a police office, where he was interviewed by an officer in a closed room and admitted committing the crime. In holding that the defendant's statement was admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings, the United States Supreme Court stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blair
...of parole for fifty years was submitted to the jury: State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.1982) (car bombing); State v. Greathouse, 627 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.1982); State v. Bostic, 625 S.W.2d 128 (Mo.1981); State v. Thomas, 625 S.W.2d 115 (Mo.1981); State v. Emerson, 623 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.1981); St......
-
State v. Bolder
...which the choice of death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole for fifty years was submitted to the jury. State v. Greathouse, 627 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.1982); State v. Bostic, 625 S.W.2d 128 (Mo.1981); State v. Thomas, 625 S.W.2d 115 (Mo.1981); State v. Emerson, 623 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.1......
-
Wilkins v. Bowersox
...First, we consider age. In four capital cases involving youths of comparable age, a life sentence was imposed. State v. Greathouse, 627 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.1982) (defendant age seventeen); State v. Allen, 710 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App.1986) (defendant age sixteen); State v. White, 694 S.W.2d 802 (Mo.Ap......
-
State v. Hutchison
...with a stabbing. A trial court has broad discretion in permitting the late endorsement of additional witnesses. State v. Greathouse, 627 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Mo.1982). Abuse of discretion may only be found when the endorsement causes fundamental unfairness. State v. Sweet, 796 S.W.2d 607, 617 n......