State v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 02 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009AP3040-CR.,2009AP3040-CR. |
| Citation | 793 N.W.2d 901,330 Wis.2d 531,2010 WI App 169 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Patrick E. HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant.FN† FN† Petition for review denied March 15, 2011. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Michael S. Holzman of Rosen and Holzman LTD, Milwaukee.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general, and James M. Freimuth, assistant attorney general.
Before CURLEY, P.J., FINE and BRENNAN, JJ.
¶ 1 Patrick E. Hampton appeals from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to first-degree reckless homicide. He contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the statements he made to police on July 20 and 21, 2008. Hampton claims that, at the outset of the July 20 interview, he expressly invoked his right to counsel and to remain silent and again expressly invoked his right to counsel two hours and thirty-eight minutes into the interview. Additionally, he contends that he never waived those rights. Because we conclude that Hampton's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rightswere not violated, we affirm the circuit court.
¶ 2 The background facts are those testified to by Detectives Timothy Heier and Mark Peterson at the suppression hearing and those revealed by the audio tapes of Hampton's interviews with detectives on July 20 and 21, 2008. The relevant facts do not appear to be in dispute.
¶ 3 On July 20, 2008, at approximately 2:40 p.m., Hampton was arrested, 1 processed, and placed in a private cell at the Milwaukee Police Department until 7:20 p.m., when he was placed in an interview room. Beginning at 7:43 p.m., Detectives Heier and Jeremiah Jacks began questioning Hampton about the July 15, 2008 death of Carlton Stovall, Hampton's roommate.The detectives were not carrying guns, and Hampton was not handcuffed.
¶ 4 Shortly after the interview began, Hampton interrupted Detective Heier, stating: "Mark told me to talk to nobody but him." 2 Detective Heier confirmed that Hampton was referring to Detective Peterson, whom Hampton knew from prior contacts. Detective Heier told Hampton that Detective Peterson's shift had ended and that he was gone for the day.
¶ 5 Detective Heier then resumed explaining the interview process to Hampton, when Hampton interrupted again, stating: Detective Heier confirmed that Hampton had prior arrests. Hampton then continued:
He [Detective Peterson] told me to talk to nobody but him.... I know how this stuff go, OK. I really don't want to say nothing. I don't have no lawyer. And understand, like I said, he told me to say nothing.... I know how it go. Good cop, bad cop.... He told me to talk to him.
¶ 6 In response, Detective Heier told Hampton that Detective Peterson had directed Detectives Heier and Jacks to talk to Hampton. Hampton reiterated that Detective Peterson "told me to talk to nobody but him." Nevertheless, Hampton proceeded to respond to background questions posed by Detective Heier.
¶ 7 After Hampton answered basic background questions, Detective Heier told Hampton that he needed to inform Hampton of his rights. Hampton replied that he had been given his rights before. Regardless, Detective Heier proceeded to read Hampton the Miranda rights 3 off the standard Department of Justice card. When asked if he understood his rights, Hampton answered, "yes, sir."
¶ 8 Detective Heier then asked Hampton if he was willing to talk with the detectives.The audio tape does not reflect what, if anything, Hampton said or did immediately after Detective Heier's question. However, a few seconds later, Hampton stated:
¶ 9 Over the next few minutes, Detective Heier explained the purpose of having two detectives in the interview room. Detective Heier then again asked Hampton: "Do you want to talk to us?" Hampton replied: "I want to talk, but I don't want to talk to both" detectives. Detective Heier testified that he understood Hampton to be waiving his rights. Over the next two hours, Detective Heier questioned Hampton, and Hampton responded to the questions.
¶ 10 Two hours and thirty-eight minutes into the July 20 interview, Hampton interrupted Detective Heier's questions, and the following exchange occurred:
¶ 11 The next twenty seconds of the audio tape reflects sounds suggesting that the detectives were packing up to leave, a suggestion confirmed by the following exchange initiated by Hampton:
¶ 12 Detective Heier then told Hampton that a police officer was going to come in to photograph the cuts on Hampton's hands. Hampton responded: "I just don't want you guys to leave right now." Detective Heier explained to Hampton that because Hampton had requested a lawyer, the detectives could not talk to him. Detective Heier told Hampton that he could retain a public defender if he could not afford to hire an attorney. Detective Heier also offered to reread Hampton the Miranda rights.
¶ 13 After taking a few minutes to consider his options, Hampton stated: "I really do want to talk to you guys ... I just need some time." Hampton requested thirty to forty minutes alone to read the Bible, pray, and talk to God before he continued to talk to detectives. Detective Heier granted Hampton's request, and then told Hampton: "If you want to talk to us again, we'll talk to you again," and Hampton replied: Detective Heier thereupon stopped the interview at 10:32 p.m., gave Hampton a Bible, and left Hampton to himself.
¶ 14 The interview resumed an hour later at 11:32 p.m. when Detective Heier alone met with Hampton in the interview room and reread Hampton his Miranda rights. When asked if he understood those rights, Hampton responded, "yes, sir." The following exchange then occurred:
¶ 15 The interview then continued for another hour, until Hampton announced to Detective Heier: "I just don't want to talk right now." Shortly thereafter, Hampton added: "I want to talk to you again." But at that point, at 12:42 a.m., five hours after the interview began, Detective Heier ended the interview and Hampton was returnedto his private cell. Hampton made no incriminating statements during the July 20 interview.
¶ 16 At 2:47 p.m. on July 21, fourteen hours after the first interview had ended, Detective Peterson, who Hampton had requested to speak with at the first interview, accompanied by Detective Billy Ball, interviewed Hampton about Stovall's death. Detective Peterson read Hampton his Miranda rights at the outset of the interview. Hampton indicated that he understood his rights and answered, "yes, sir," when asked if he agreed to waive his rights and to speak to the detectives about the homicide.
¶ 17 The July 21 interview took place in an interview room at the police station. According to Detective Peterson's testimony, Hampton was not handcuffed, and never asked for counsel or to remain silent. The interview lasted two hours and twelve minutes, during which time Hampton admitted to killing Stovall while high on drugs.
¶ 18 Consequently, on July 23, 2008, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Hampton with one count of first-degree reckless homicide. Hampton filed a pretrial motion, seeking to suppress the statements he made to Milwaukee police detectives on July 20 and 21, and any evidence derived therefrom. He argued that during the July 20 interview he never affirmatively waived his rights and he was questioned even after asking for an attorney, requiring that any statements he made to detectives that day be suppressed. He further argued that his statements to detectives on July 21 were not sufficiently attenuated from the July 20 violations and should be suppressed as well.
¶ 19 Following a hearing on the motion, at which both Detectives Heier and Peterson testified, and following the circuit court's review of the audio tapes of the interviews, the circuit court denied Hampton's motion.4 The circuit court concluded that Hampton never unequivocally invoked his right to counsel at the start of the July 20 interview, and later, after Detective Heier read Hampton his Miranda rights, Hampton voluntarily waived those rights. The court also concluded that although Hampton invoked his right to counsel two hours and thirty-eight minutes into the July 20 interview when he said, "I just want to talk to alawyer," Hampton thereafter initiated a discussion about the case when he told detectives he did not want them to leave. The court found that Hampton was again read his Miranda rights and waived them after invoking his right to counsel.
¶ 20 With respect to the July 21 interview, the circuit court found that Hampton was given his Miranda rights at the outset of the interview and waived them. The circuit court also concluded that even if Hampton had invoked his right to an attorney during the July 20 interview, there was a sufficient break between interviews so as not to taint the July 21 interview.
¶ 21 Subsequently, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hampton pled guilty to the original charge of first-degree reckless homicide, and the State agreed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abbott
...warning was given and that it was understood by the accused’ and that the accused then went on to make an uncoerced statement." State v. Hampton , 2010 WI App 169, ¶32, 330 Wis. 2d 531, 793 N.W.2d 901 (quoting Berghuis v. Thompkins , 560 U.S. 370, 384, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010......
-
State v. Cummings
...also cited in [State v.] Markwardt, [2007 WI App 242,] 306 Wis.2d 420, ¶ 28, [742 N.W.2d 546,] and [State v.] Hampton, [2010 WI App 169,] 330 Wis.2d 531, ¶ 46[, 793 N.W.2d 901].4 ¶ 96 The majority opinion relies on Ross and Markwardt,5 citing the cases frequently. The majority opinion does ......
-
State v. Cervantes
...apartment purportedly with Cervantes' consent. “Ordinarily, a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses.” State v. Hampton, 2010 WI App 169, ¶ 23, 330 Wis.2d 531, 793 N.W.2d 901,rev. denied,2011 WI 29, 332 Wis.2d 279, 797 N.W.2d 524. However, “[a] narrowly crafted excep......
-
State v. Keding
...State v. Conner, 2012 WI.App. 105, ¶15, 344 Wis.2d 233, 821 N.W.2d 267 (quoting State v. Hampton, 2010 WI.App. 169, ¶23, 330 Wis.2d 531, 793 N.W.2d 901). "However, 'a narrowly crafted exception to the exists,' 'which permits appellate review of an order denying a motion to suppress evidence......