State v. Grimes, A–14–181.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. A–14–181.,A–14–181. |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Troy E. Grimes, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
W. Patrick Dunn, Omaha, for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and George R. Love for appellee.
1. Motions to Suppress: Confessions: Constitutional Law: Appeal and Error.In reviewing a motion to suppress a confession based on the claimed involuntariness of the statement, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. With regard to historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court's findings for clear error. Whether those facts suffice to meet the constitutional standards, however, is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court's determination.
2. Confessions.To be admissible, a statement or confession of an accused must have been freely and voluntarily made.
3. Confessions: Due Process.The Due Process Clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV and the due process clause of Neb. Const. art. I, § 3, preclude admissibility of an involuntary confession.
4. Confessions.Whether a confession or statement was voluntary depends on the totality of the circumstances.
5. Confessions: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Due Process.Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
6. Confessions: Proof: Appeal and Error.The State has the burden to prove that a defendant's statement was voluntary and not coerced. In making this determination, an appellate court applies a totality of the circumstances test.
7. Confessions: Appeal and Error.Factors to consider in determining whether a defendant's statement was voluntary and not coerced include the atmosphere in which the interrogation took place, the demeanor of the interrogation, the interrogator's tactics, the details of the interrogation, the presence or absence of warnings, physical treatment, prior
history with the police, age, intelligence, education, background, and any characteristic of the accused that might cause his or her will to be easily overborne.
8. Confessions.A confession must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence.
Troy E. Grimes appeals his jury-based conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. He contends that the district court erred in allowing the State to adduce evidence of statements, made by him in his postarrest interrogation, obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, he contends police threatened to arrest his mother in order to obtain inculpatory statements from him.
On January 17, 2013, at approximately 9 a.m., three Omaha police officers went to contact Grimes, who was living at his mother's house, based on information obtained in a separate and unrelated investigation. Present at the house at the time officers arrived were Grimes; his mother, Barbara Grimes; Grimes' girlfriend; and a friend of Grimes', who was allowed to leave the home after it was determined that he did not have any outstanding warrants. Barbara granted the officers' request to search the house. During the search, an unregistered gun was found in the basement of the house, wrapped in a black
bag and placed in an old, unused furnace. The gun had eight live rounds inside the magazine and chamber. Grimes was arrested and transported to the police station and taken to an interview room where Steven Kult, an officer with the Omaha Police Department's child victim unit, conducted an interview of Grimes. A video recording was made of this interview which was received into evidence during the suppression hearing, and a redacted copy of the interview was received into evidence at trial.
A review of the video recording establishes that Kult began interviewing Grimes at 10:47 a.m. The interview began with Kult asking Grimes questions about his medical status, education, alcohol and drug use, amount of sleep the previous night, work, and hobbies. At 10:51, Kult advised Grimes of his Miranda rights, which Grimes waived. At 10:53, Kult explained to Grimes that the reason for the interview was an allegation by Grimes' two daughters of child sexual abuse and Kult informed Grimes that the police were not proceeding with that investigation; however, Kult informed Grimes that during the children's interviews regarding the abuse, the children talked about marijuana use in the home and described seeing Grimes with a gun in the home. Kult told Grimes that because of these disclosures, the police had to follow up at Grimes' home, and that these disclosures are what led to the finding of the gun. At 10:56, the following colloquy occurred between Kult and Grimes:
During the interview, Kult also explained that the gun may be associated with another crime and Grimes told Kult that he had been holding the gun for a friend named “Scooby” for a little over a year. Kult and Grimes took a break from 11:09 through 11:20 a.m., after which time Grimes signed a waiver for the collection of a DNA sample. Another break was taken between 11:23 and 11:29, after which a DNA swab was collected from Grimes. At 11:43, Grimes was transported to jail, concluding the interview and the recording.
Although Grimes was in the interview room for about an hour, the actual interview lasted for about 20 minutes. During the interview, Grimes did not ask Kult to stop the questioning and did not ask for an attorney. On February 8, 2013, Grimes was charged with possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, a Class ID felony, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–1206 (Cum. Supp. 2014).
In April 2013, Grimes filed a motion to suppress any statements made by him to law enforcement personnel during the January 17, 2013, custodial interrogation. He alleged (1) that law enforcement personnel interrogated him with the intent to elicit incriminating responses without first having advised him of his Miranda rights; (2) that law enforcement personnel employed tactics of coercion and duress to obtain incriminating information from him and offered improper inducements and used threats of incarceration in order to obtain incriminating information from him and that thus, his statements were not freely, voluntarily, and intelligently given; and (3) that his statements were obtained in violation of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions.
A suppression hearing was held on May 20, 2013. At the start of the hearing, Grimes' counsel made an oral motion to suppress a second, subsequent statement made by Grimes during a followup interview by Omaha police officer Scott Beran. The State had prepared to address both statements by Grimes, and the district court determined that the record was clear the suppression hearing was addressing both statements made by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jimenez
... ... 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194.) Since then, however, the Supreme Court has stated "it is clear that this passage ... under current precedent does not state the standard for determining the voluntariness of a confession ... " ( Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 285, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d ... [Citations.]" ( State v. Grimes (Neb. Ct. App. 2015) 23 Neb.App. 304, 316-317, 870 N.W.2d 162.) We therefore accept the People's suggestion that a threat to arrest or prosecute a ... ...
-
State v. Barlow
... ... Hufstetler , 782 F.3d 19, 24 (1st Cir. 2015) ; see State v. Grimes , 23 Neb. App. 304, 317-18, 870 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (listing cases in which courts have found threats coercive when police did not have probable cause for a family member's arrest). Unfairness Due to Exhortations to Speak the Truth Barlow next contends that Hagen's repeated requests for Barlow to ... ...
-
State v. McCurdy
... ... Whether those facts suffice to meet the constitutional standards, however, is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the trial courts determination. See State v. Grimes , 23 Neb.App. 304, 870 N.W.2d 162 (2015). (b) Analysis After J.U. reported to police that McCurdy had been sexually abusing her and that she was pregnant with his child, police went with J.U. to the Sandstone house. When police arrived at the house, they did an initial search to determine if ... ...
-
State v. Martinez, S-18-618
... ... See, e.g., State v. Erks , 214 Neb. 302, 333 N.W.2d 776 (1983) ; State v. Grimes , 23 Neb. App. 304, 870 N.W.2d 162 (2015). But while the intelligence, education, and background of the accused are factors that may be relevant to whether a confession was voluntary, we have also repeatedly held that coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession ... ...