State v. Jones, 92-1316-CR.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1316-CR.,92-1316-CR. |
| Citation | 532 N.W.2d 79,192 Wis.2d 78 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason A. JONES, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there was a brief by Robert P. VanDeHey and Hoskins, Brown, Kalnins, McNamara & VanDeHey, Lancaster and oral argument by Robert P. VanDeHey.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by William L. Gansner, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals that affirmed a judgment of conviction of the circuit court for Grant County, Honorable John R. Wagner, judge. A jury found the defendant, Mr. Jason A. Jones, guilty of first-degree intentional homicide, sec. 940.01, Stats. 1991-92, and burglary, sec. 943.10(2)(a), Stats. 1991-92. Mr. Jones was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date of 2041 on the homicide count, and a consecutive twenty year prison term on the burglary count. Jones asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress statements he argues were taken in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and his sixth amendment right to counsel. Jones also asserts that the court of appeals erred by relying on a decision that was mandated after he committed his crime in upholding the trial court's refusal to allow an offered jury instruction on second degree intentional homicide. We find no error, and so affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
At about midnight on May 16, 1991, Jones, who at the time was seventeen years old, and Mr. Leonard Crary broke into the apartment of Mr. Gerald Szymanski and attacked him, repeatedly stabbing him and cutting his throat. After the attack, Mr. Szymanski managed to walk to a gas station before he collapsed and died.
At about 2:45 a.m. on May 17, 1991, the police notified Ms. Kim Mathews, Mr. Szymanski's daughter, of her father's death. An officer took Ms. Mathews across the street to the police station, where she made a telephone call. The officer was "bothered" because Ms. Mathews showed no signs of emotion upon being told of her father's death. Ms. Mathews returned home at about 3:00 a.m.
About 5:30 a.m., the officer returned to Ms. Mathews home with several other officers and received her permission to search her residence. The officers found Jones and Crary asleep in a bedroom, and Jones was told, at gunpoint, to remain in the living room of the home. The officers also found two knives—the murder weapons—and several items of blood stained clothing.
Deputy Jim Kopp of the Grant County Sheriff's Department asked Jones to accompany him to his squad car which was in front of Ms. Mathews house. Deputy Kopp told Jones that he was not under arrest and that he could return to the house if he wanted, but that he probably would be arrested by the end of the day. Deputy Kopp then advised Jones of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Jones signed a written waiver. The two talked for one hour, during which time Jones made no incriminating statements.
While in the squad car outside Ms. Mathew's residence, Jones requested the use of a rest room. Deputy Kopp drove Jones to the Fennimore Police Department, but before arriving at the station, Deputy Kopp stopped briefly outside Mr. Szymanski's residence.1 When they arrived at the police department, Jones used the rest room, and afterwards Deputy Kopp continued the interview. He did not reread the Miranda warnings Jones had waived about one hour before. In this interview, Jones gave a statement that placed him at the scene of the murder, but he denied planning the murder or stabbing the victim. According to Jones' first statement which he signed at 8:47 a.m.:
We went, CC and I went up to the guy's house that died, I don't know his name .... On the way over, we discussed it and we were going to go into the house and take any money we could find along with VCRs, anything like that. We walked into the house ... There was a door and CC opened the door and it must have been a bedroom, a dog started barking and a guy jumped up from a bed, CC at this time freaked out and reached out and stuck the guy with the knife, I could hear like blood squirting, I can't really describe the sound. It is something like when a pig has its head cut off ... I at no time stabbed the man .... I washed the knife off while CC was in the bathroom and the reason that I washed the knife off was so I could get rid of any evidence of the burglary or the stabbing.
After giving this statement, Jones was transported to the Grant County Jail.
Because Jones was seventeen, the District Attorney's office notified the Grant County Social Services Department of the arrest. A juvenile intake worker, Mr. Thomas Hughey, received notice that a juvenile was being held in the Grant County Jail at about 9:30 a.m., May 17, 1994. Mr. Hughey met with Jones at the jail and gave the following testimony about that meeting:
On cross-examination, Mr. Hughey stated:
Mr. Hughey later attempted to contact Jones to see if he had any questions about his rights. Again on crossexamination, Mr. Hughey was asked about what he was thinking when making that call:
After talking with Jones, at approximately 10:50 a.m., Mr. Hughey filed a Temporary Physical Custody Request form, Form J-103. Mr. Hughey then notified the Public Defender's Office that there was a juvenile in custody and that a Detention Hearing had been scheduled for 1:00 p.m.2 The Assistant District Attorney requested that Mr. Hughey not give the Public Defender's Office the name of the juvenile, and not to contact the defendant's parents or the defendant's legal guardian, Sauk County. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hughey told the Assistant District Attorney that he was obligated by law to inform the defendant's parents and his legal custodian, and the Assistant District Attorney told him to do so.
Upon learning of the Detention Hearing, the Public Defender's Office in Lancaster, Wisconsin appointed local counsel, attorney Mark Hoskins to represent Jones. Someone from Attorney Hoskins' office immediately advised jail personnel that no one was to interview the defendant. Grant County Sheriff's Captain Krohn knew of the instruction, but decided to interview Jones anyway because jail personnel told him that Jones had not requested an attorney.
At the outset of the interview, Captain Krohn asked Jones if he had been informed of his constitutional rights, and Jones responded that he had. Captain Krohn then asked Jones if he understood that those same rights still applied. Jones said he did. Jones then made an incriminating statement which he signed at 12:07 p.m. That signed statement contains his admissions that he stabbed the victim and that he discussed the possibility of killing the victim prior to the assault. It reads in pertinent part:
The plan was to go and rob this gentleman's apartment. We discussed before leaving that if the plan didn't work we would kill the man. CC had a buck knife and I had a silver-handled knife. After we got to the apartment, the man jumped up out of the bed and got the knife away from CC. We both then jumped at the man. We were fighting for the knife. I had the man from the back with one arm around the neck and the other on top of his forehead. CC was underneath him. CC was trying to get the knife back away from him. The man's arm which was holding the knife came down and CC got stabbed in the arm. I reached in my pocket and opened the blade by pushing the knob on the blade and it came out. I then stabbed the man in the left side. I also stabbed the man in the back. I don't recall how many times. I also stabbed him on the front I believe once. After CC got the knife back, I went over to the dog to try to kill it.
Over the next few days, Deputy Kopp received messages from Jones that Jones wanted to speak to him. Deputy Kopp did not contact Mr. Hoskins or the District Attorney's Office prior to meeting with Jones. Deputy Kopp testified that he did not interrogate Jones, but only took him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong
...prove the sufficiency of the Miranda warnings and waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence); State v. Jones, 192 Wis.2d 78, 114a, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995)(per curiam on motion for reconsideration)(striking from the court's original opinion the statement that the State must pr......
-
State v. Agnello
...In support of this proposition, the court cited State v. Santiago, 206 Wis.2d 3, 28-29, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996); State v. Jones, 192 Wis.2d 78, 114a, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995)(per curiam on motion for reconsideration); State v. Rewolinski, 159 Wis.2d 1, 16 & n. 7, 464 N.W.2d 401 (1990); State v. A......
-
State v. Harris
...case before us. See Thompson v. Village of Hales Corners, 115 Wis.2d 289, 307, 340 N.W.2d 704 (1983).11 See also State v. Jones, 192 Wis.2d 78, 95 n. 4, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995).12 In fact, on the second remand, the court determined that the gun was admissible under the inevitable discovery rul......
-
State v. Phillips
...Wis.2d 721, 748, 546 N.W.2d 406 (1996)(reviewing whether Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel was denied); State v. Jones, 192 Wis.2d 78, 93, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995)(reviewing whether defendant's waiver of Miranda rights was valid); State v. Thiel, 183 Wis.2d 505, 516, 515 N.W.2d 847......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...452 (1994). A statement to police that, “I’ve already got a lawyer,” has been held to not be a request for counsel. See State v. Jones , 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wisc. 1995). On the other hand, when a suspect asked, “Can my attorney be present for this?” the court held this question to be an unambigu......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...452 (1994). A statement to police that, “I’ve already got a lawyer,” has been held to not be a request for counsel. See State v. Jones , 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wisc. 1995). On the other hand, when a suspect asked, “Can my attorney be present for this?” the court held this question to be an unambigu......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...452 (1994). A statement to police that, “I’ve already got a lawyer,” has been held to not be a request for counsel. See State v. Jones , 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wisc. 1995). On the other hand, when a suspect asked, “Can my attorney be present for this?” the court held this question to be an unambigu......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...452 (1994). A statement to police that, “I’ve already got a lawyer,” has been held to not be a request for counsel. See State v. Jones , 532 N.W.2d 79 (Wisc. 1995). On the other hand, when a suspect asked, “Can my attorney be present for this?” the court held this question to be an unambigu......