State v. Jude

• Citation: 686 So.2d 528
• Decision Date: 19 April 1996
• Docket Number: CR-95-0359
• Parties: STATE v. Marvin Ray JUDE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 528

686 So.2d 528

STATE v. Marvin Ray JUDE.

CR-95-0359.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1996.

On Application for Rehearing

June 21, 1996.

Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Joseph Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellant.

Bruce Gardner, Huntsville, for Appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

Marvin Ray Jude was indicted in Madison County on September 1, 1995, for the unlawful breaking and entering of a vehicle in violation of § 13A-8-11 of the Code of Alabama 1975. On November 13, 1995, the circuit court granted Jude's motion to suppress a statement obtained from Jude by Detective Michael Edward Shaneyfelt on June 6, 1995, at the City of Madison police station without the warnings of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state appeals the order granting the motion to suppress the statement. This appeal concerns only one issue: Whether the circumstances under which Jude gave his statement amounted to "custody" for the purposes of requiring Miranda warnings.

The evidence presented at the suppression hearing was as follows: On June 3, 1995, an automobile was broken into in the parking lot of the Cracker Barrel restaurant located at 120 Cleghorn Boulevard, Madison, Alabama. Jude, an employee at the restaurant, met the description of a person identified as having been seen near the automobile near the time of the crime. An officer obtained Jude's name and address. On June 6, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., Detective Shaneyfelt went to Jude's residence and asked Jude if he would accompany Shaneyfelt to the police station so that Shaneyfelt could ask him about the case. Jude agreed to accompany Shaneyfelt, and the two proceeded in Shaneyfelt's car to the police station. During the course of the interview at the police station, Jude confessed to the crime. Detective Shaneyfelt did not at any time before the interview advise Jude of his Miranda rights. The trial court ruled in the subsequent suppression hearing that the failure to advise Jude of his Miranda rights was improper, and it granted Jude's motion to suppress his confession.

"[A] trial court's ruling based upon conflicting evidence given at a suppression hearing is binding on this Court, and is not to be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion." Jackson v. State, 589 So.2d 781, 784 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) (citations omitted). " 'A judge abuses his discretion only when his decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law or where the record contains no evidence on which he rationally could have based his decision.' " Dowdy v. Gilbert Engineering Co., 372 So.2d 11, 12 (Ala.1979) (quoting Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry & Hutchinson, Co., 511 F.2d 225 (9th Cir.1975)).

"The question of whether a suspect has been subjected to custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings is 'not an easy one,' and the trial court's findings on conflicting evidence must be given great weight. Harris v. State, 376 So.2d 773, 776 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 778 (Ala.1979). 'The trial judge's finding of admissibility "will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is evident that the determination was palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence." ' Watkins v. State, 497 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (quoting Ex parte Singleton, 465 So.2d 443, 445 (Ala.1985)). The determination of the admissibility of the defendant's confession was within the sound discretion of the trial court, which was in the best position to determine the credibility of the voir dire witnesses by observing their testimony and demeanor. See Lindsey v. State, 456 So.2d 383, 389 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), aff'd, 456 So.2d 393 (Ala.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1023, 105 S.Ct. 1384, 84 L.Ed.2d 403 (1985). This determination will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Lindsey; 1 LaFave & Israel, [ Criminal Procedure,] at section 10.4(b)."

Finch v. State, 518 So.2d 864, 871 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).

In this case the trial court heard only the testimony of Detective Shaneyfelt and Jude at the suppression hearing. The facts elicited from these do not conflict, with one exception: what Shaneyfelt said to Jude on the doorstep of Jude's house immediately before Jude accompanied Shaneyfelt to the police station. On direct examination Shaneyfelt testified:

"Q: Now, tell me about when you went out to pick him up. Did you tell him why you were picking him up, [to] talk to him?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: Well, what did you tell him?

"A: I first presented my credentials to Mr. Jude. I identified myself as a detective with the Madison Police Department. I told him that I was currently investigating a break-in into a car that occurred at the Cracker Barrel restaurant ... on June 3, 1995. I asked Mr. Jude would he be willing to go to the police department with me so that he and I could sit down and discuss the case. He agreed with me. He was very cooperative.

"....

"Q: Now, let me step back a second. Why were you wanting to interview Mr. Jude?

"A: Mr. Jude was an employee who worked in the kitchen area there at the Cracker Barrel and who was also present on the date that the incident occurred on June 3rd.

"....

"Q: Did you at anytime place him under arrest for this crime?

"A: No, sir.

"Q: Did you place him under arrest for any crime?

"A: No, sir."

On cross-examination Shaneyfelt testified:

"Q: Without question, at that time [when Shaneyfelt went to Jude's residence] he was a suspect. I mean, you wanted to talk to him to find out what he knew about this incident; is that correct?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: In fact, he was the only one that you had any information on about this at all; is that correct?

"A: Yes, sir.

"....

"Q: Who answered the door?

"A: Mr. Jude did.

"Q: Was anybody else present?

"A: I don't recall, sir.

"Q: Did you identify yourself as a police officer?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: You told Mr. Jude that you were an investigator with the City of Madison?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: Did you tell him at the scene there that you wanted to talk to him about an alleged car burglary that occurred on June 3?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: Did you tell him that you wanted to take him down to your office and ask him some questions about that?

"A: Yes, sir, I asked him would he be willing to go to the police department to my office. Again, he was very cooperative. He said, 'Yes, sir.'

"Q: Did you tell him at that time, Detective Shaneyfelt, that he had a right to refuse to go with you?

"A: I don't recall if I did or not, sir.

"Q: Did you tell him he was not under arrest?

"A: I think I did, yes, sir.

"Q: What exactly did you say about that?

"A: If I recall, I stated to him that I had no warrants and that he was not under arrest, that I just wanted to talk to him about the case.

"Q: Did you tell him he was free to leave?

"A: I don't know if I ever told him that, no, sir.

"Q: In any event, your testimony is he voluntarily went with you?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: And you took him to the police department; is that correct?

"A: Yes, sir, to my office."

Jude then took the stand and testified on direct examination:

"Q: Do you recall Detective Shaneyfelt coming to your residence on June 6, 1995?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: Do you recall what he said to you when he came to your residence?

"A: Yes.

"Q: What did he say?

"A: He wanted to take me down to the department and talk to me about an incident that happened at the Cracker Barrel.

"Q: And what did you say?

"A: I said, 'Okay'.

"Q: At that point you said you would go with him?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Did you feel like you had the right not to go?

"A: Well, not really. I didn't have no other choice.

"Q: Did he tell you you had the right to refuse to go?

"A: No, sir, he didn't.

"Q: Did he tell you that you were free to leave at any point?

"A: No, sir.

"....

"Q: Did he ever tell you that you were not under arrest?

"A: No, he didn't."

On cross-examination Jude testified:

"Q: Now, Mr. Jude, you are saying that you felt like you were under arrest. You have been under arrest before, though, right?

"A: Yes, sir.

"Q: How many occasions, do you know?

"A: A number of them.

"Q: A number of times, right?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Several times?

"A: Yes.

"Q: When you were placed under arrest before, did the officer put handcuffs on you?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Did they always advise you that you had the right to remain silent?

"A: No.

"Q: Has anyone ever told you that?

"A: Told me what?

"Q: When you were under arrest that you had the right to remain silent. You didn't have to talk?

"A: Yes.

"Q: You have been told that before?

"A: Yes.

"Q: When they arrested you before, did they tell you what you were under arrest for?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Did they say, 'You're under arrest'?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Did they have you put your hands behind your back when they cuffed you?

"A: In some cases.

"Q: In some cases?

"A: Yes.

"Q: Did Investigator Shaneyfelt do any of that to you on the 6th?

"A: No, he didn't.

"Q: He never told you that you were under arrest, did he?

"A: No.

"Q: He never said, 'I've got a warrant for you,' did he?

"A: No."

The testimony reveals that, although Mr. Jude may have subjectively felt that he was under arrest, he was never actually placed under formal arrest and he was not in custody at the time of his confession. Miranda warnings are not required unless the suspect has been arrested or is in custody.

" 'Miranda warnings are not necessarily required to be given to everyone whom the police question. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 [493-95], 97 S.Ct. 711, 713, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). Miranda is only applicable when an individual is subjected to custodial interrogation. Davis v. Allsbrooks, 778 F.2d 168, 170 (4th Cir.1985); Primm v. State, 473 So.2d 1149, 1158 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 473 So.2d 1149 (Ala.1985). "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." Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612.

" 'There is a distinction which must be made...