State v. Holman, SD 33961

• Decision Date: 11 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. SD 33961,SD 33961
• Citation: 498 S.W.3d 812
• Parties: State of Missouri, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. David Kevin Holman, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

498 S.W.3d 812

State of Missouri, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.David Kevin Holman, Defendant–Respondent.

No. SD 33961

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two .

Filed: March 11, 2016

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 4, 2016

Sustained and Cause Ordered Transferred May 3, 2016

Attorneys for Appellant—Don Trotter of Mount Vernon, MO; Joseph Wantuck of Springfield, MO; and Chris Koster (Attorney General) and Andrew C. Hooper of Jefferson City, MO

Attorneys for Respondent—Roger Jones and Jason Coatney of Springfield, MO

DON E. BURRELL

, P.J.

The State appeals the trial court's order sustaining David Kevin Holman's (“Defendant”) motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement.¹ The State's single point claims the trial court erred in granting Defendant's motion “because Defendant did not unequivocally assert his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, in that Defendant only refused to sign [a] consent to search form without an attorney but did not otherwise refuse to communicate with the police.” Because the police honored Defendant's unambiguous, limited invocation of his rights, we reverse the challenged order and direct the trial court to enter an order denying Defendant's motion to suppress.

Standard of Review

We review the grant of a motion to suppress to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court's ruling, State v. Glisson, 80 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Mo.App.S.D.2002)

, and will reverse only if the ruling was clearly erroneous. Id. “When the issue to be decided involves the constitutional protection against forced self-incrimination, our review of the trial court's ruling is a two-part inquiry: we defer to the trial court's determinations of witness credibility and findings of fact, but consider the court's conclusions of law de novo. ” State v. Norman, 431 S.W.3d 563, 568–69 (Mo.App.E.D.2014)

(internal quotations omitted).

Because the trial court decided the motion on stipulated facts, we review de novo whether the trial court drew the proper legal conclusions from the stipulated facts. Cf. State v. Avent, 432 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Mo.App.W.D.2014)

.

Stipulated Facts² & Trial Court's Ruling

At approximately 12:00 a.m. on December 10, 2013, RaDonna Holman (“RaDonna”) shot Defendant in the back of the arm with a .40 caliber handgun. Defendant returned fire and struck RaDonna with what turned out to be a fatal shot. Defendant began CPR on RaDonna and dialed 9–1–1.

Lawrence County Deputies Ryan Devost (“Deputy Devost”) and Michael Thom (“Deputy Thom”) arrived at the residence. After completing a protective sweep, Deputy Devost placed Defendant in handcuffs and removed him from the residence. Deputy Devost informed arriving paramedics that Defendant had been shot. As RaDonna's injuries were more serious, the paramedics first provided care to her. Deputy Devost placed Defendant in a patrol car to await treatment.

The paramedics exited the residence, and Deputy Thorn escorted Defendant to an ambulance to be examined. Deputy Devost, who had been taping off the scene, went to the ambulance and spoke with Defendant. Deputy Devost read Defendant his Miranda³

rights and asked him to sign a form granting the officers consent to search his home. To that inquiry, Defendant responded, “I ain't signing shit without my attorney.” Defendant was not asked any additional questions that day.

Deputy Devost advised detectives on scene that he had read Defendant his Miranda

rights and relayed Defendant's response when asked to sign a consent to search form. Defendant was then transported to Mercy Hospital in Springfield and treated for his wound.

Upon his discharge from the hospital, Defendant was taken to the Lawrence County jail. The following morning, Lawrence County Detective Linda McElroy (“Detective McElroy”) retrieved Defendant from his jail cell, read him his Miranda

rights and asked Defendant if he understood those rights. Defendant said that he did, and he continued to speak with Detective McElroy.⁴ Defendant did not execute any document or otherwise acknowledge in writing that he was waiving his constitutional rights, and Defendant had not attempted to initiate any communication with the police after being taken to the jail. Defendant was subsequently charged with first-degree murder, see section 565.020, and armed criminal action, see section 571.015.

In granting Defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court found that Defendant's statement, “I ain't signing shit without my attorney” indicated that he would not consent to anything without the benefit of having an attorney present. The trial court based this conclusion on the fact that Defendant did not “affirmatively pronounce any exceptions to his invocation[.]” The State now timely appeals that decision.⁵

Analysis

The sole issue for our determination is a question of law: whether Defendant's statement, “I ain't signing shit without my attorney[,]” when given in response to a request to sign a consent to search form, constituted an objective, unambiguous, unequivocal, and specific request for counsel that prohibited officers from interrogating Defendant the next morning without an attorney present.⁶

To protect the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, the police must terminate their interrogation of an accused in custody if the accused requests the assistance of counsel. The accused must make an objective, unambiguous, unequivocal, and specific request for counsel to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. The desire to have counsel present must be sufficiently and clearly articulated so that a reasonable police officer under the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. The accused cannot be subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. Law enforcement officials may not restart interrogation without counsel present regardless of whether the accused has consulted with his attorney. However, if the statement of a desire to have counsel present fails to meet the requisite level of clarity for police officers to understand it as a request for an attorney, the officers are not required to stop questioning the accused.

Norman, 431 S.W.3d at 569

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

The accused may also invoke a qualified right to counsel that is limited to the circumstances set forth by the accused. Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 528, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987)

. If authorities honor that qualified invocation, they may otherwise question an accused without offending the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 529–30, 107 S.Ct. 828. Generally, alleged invocations of counsel should be interpreted broadly in favor of the accused, but police officers are not required to interpret a limited request as an assertion of a general unlimited right to counsel. Id. “Interpretation is only required where the defendant's words, understood as ordinary people would understand them, are ambiguous.” Id. at 529, 107 S.Ct. 828.

Here, an ordinary person would have understood that Defendant was simply refusing to sign the consent to search form without an attorney present. See U.S. v. Martin, 664 F.3d 684, 685–86, 689 (7th Cir.2011)

(finding invocation was unambiguous and limited to written statements where the defendant was asked if he would provide a written statement to officers and responded, “I'd rather talk to an attorney first before I do that”).

“Although the courts ensure compliance with the Miranda

requirements through the exclusionary rule, it is police officers who must actually decide whether or not they can question a suspect.” Davis v. U.S., 512 U.S. 452, 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994). “The Edwards [v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484–85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ] rule—questioning must cease if the suspect asks for a lawyer—provides a bright line that can be applied by officers in the real world of investigation and interrogation without unduly hampering the gathering of information.” Id. “Edwards requires courts to determine whether the accused actually invoked his right to counsel.” Davis, 512 U.S. at 458, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (quotations omitted). “To avoid difficulties of proof and to provide guidance to officers conducting interrogations, this is an objective inquiry[,]” id. at 458–59, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (citing Barrett, 479 U.S. at 529, 107 S.Ct. 828 ), which we view from the perspective of a reasonable police officer under the circumstances. State v. Haslett, 283 S.W.3d 769, 784 (Mo.App.S.D.2009). “[T]he likelihood that a suspect would wish counsel to be present is not the test for applicability of Edwards. ” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991).

“The rationale underlying Edwards

is that the police must respect a suspect's wishes regarding his right to have an attorney present during custodial interrogation.” Davis, 512 U.S. at 460, 114 S.Ct. 2350. In this circumstance, where Defendant has not clearly articulated his desire to have an attorney present during custodial interrogation and police have honored Defendant's limited invocation of counsel, neither Edwards nor Barrett is offended.

Defendant argues that Barrett 's

recognition of a limited invocation of counsel was premised on the defendant making an affirmative statement as to the manner in which he was not invoking his right to counsel (i.e., that Barrett required the defendant to state that he would engage in verbal communication with police, in addition to the defendant's statement that he would not make a written statement without an attorney).⁷ While Defendant's factual assertion is true regarding the statements made in Barrett,

the holding in the case was not premised on the addition of such language.

To the contrary, if the specific limitation is not ambiguous, it is sufficient to...