State v. Kirkwood

Decision Date24 January 1986
Docket NumberNo. 15069,15069
Citation110 Idaho 97,714 P.2d 66
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Miles A. "Mike" KIRKWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Timothy J. Gass, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

WALTERS, Chief Judge.

Miles A. "Mike" Kirkwood was convicted by a jury of first degree murder in the stabbing death of his former wife. He received an indeterminate life sentence. Kirkwood appeals his conviction raising four issues: (1) that the trial court erred in not making findings of fact and not ruling on his motion to suppress his confessions; (2) that Kirkwood's first confession was involuntary and should have been suppressed; (3) that Kirkwood's second confession was inadmissible as being the direct result of the first involuntary confession; and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We hold that the trial court did err in failing to make findings of fact and in failing to rule on the motion to suppress. Because of our holding, we do not reach the remaining issues. We vacate the judgment and remand with directions for the trial court to make the findings and to rule on the motion.

Kirkwood was convicted by a jury of first degree murder for stabbing his ex-wife to death in her home. The record shows that Kirkwood, on the day of the divorce from his ex-wife, went to her home to have her sign some tax forms. Kirkwood was at the house for several hours with his ex-wife. As she prepared to go to bed, Kirkwood stabbed her several times with a knife he had taken into the house with him. The victim later died in the hospital. Police arrested Kirkwood at the house and took him to the Ada County Jail. At the jail, Kirkwood gave two statements admitting the killing. Prior to questioning, Kirkwood was read his Miranda rights. He also signed documents acknowledging that he had been given these rights and that he understood them.

Prior to trial, Kirkwood moved to suppress the confessions. After a suppression hearing, the trial judge indicated that he was taking the matter under advisement and would notify both parties prior to trial of his decision. However, the record does not reflect that the trial judge made any decision or entered any order denying or granting Kirkwood's motion to suppress. Nor did the judge make any findings of fact as to the motion. Trial of the case proceeded twelve days after the suppression hearing. Both parties and the court proceeded as if the motion had been denied. During trial, defense counsel did not object to the admission of the taped confessions. On appeal, Kirkwood alleges that failure to make findings or to rule on the suppression motion was error. Kirkwood requests that the case be remanded (1) for a new suppression hearing or (2) for written findings and a decision on the previous motion to suppress. We agree that there was error, and we grant Kirkwood's second request based on the following reasons.

A central theme in Kirkwood's allegations of error concerning the confessions is that his first confession was not voluntary. Within this rubric he challenges the judge's failure to make findings of fact and his failure to decide the motion on the record. As to the failure to render a decision, it appears to us that the trial judge inadvertently failed to issue an order denying the motion and proceeded with the trial. 1 When the confession was admitted at trial, the defense counsel did not object to its admission. However, because of the fundamental nature of the alleged error, we do not see that the resolution of this issue hinges on Kirkwood's failure to object. See State v. Williams, 103 Idaho 635, 651 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.1982). Due process requires that a defendant's conviction not be the result of the use of an involuntary confession, regardless of whether the confession is true or not. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). In a similar vein, a defendant is entitled to a "fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness." Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 377, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1781, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); State v. Wyman, 97 Idaho 486, 547 P.2d 531 (1976); State v. Ortega, 95 Idaho 239, 504 P.2d 466 (1973). Therefore, we refuse to proceed with review while such a critical factor remains undetermined.

Our primary concern is the judge's failure to make any factual findings for the record and how this failing fits within the context of I.C.R. 12(d). I.C.R. 12(d) provides:

(d) Rulings on motion. A motion made before trial shall be determined before trial unless the court orders that it be deferred for determination at the trial of the general issue. When factual issues are involved in the determination of a motion, the court, upon the request of any party, shall make its findings thereon. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, unless requested by a party, the judge has no affirmative duty to make specific findings of fact. Kirkwood has cited cases from Colorado and Arizona indicating that a judge is required to make findings of fact when ruling on a motion to suppress. 2 However, those requirements stem from established case law, not from any statutory requirement. Also, there appears to be no procedural rule analogous to our Rule 12(d) in either state's criminal rules which would raise the issue we are presented with.

Therefore, we must decide for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Kysar
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1989
    ...1 Under I.C.R. 12(e) the trial court was not even required to make factual findings unless requested by any party. State v. Kirkwood, 110 Idaho 97, 714 P.2d 66 (Ct.App.1986).2 As an appellate court we do not have the same opportunity to assess the witness's credibility and demeanor on the s......
  • State v. Kirkwood
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 26, 1986
    ...question of voluntariness without some "basic facts." The Court of Appeals, in vacating the judgment of conviction and remanding, 110 Idaho 97, 714 P.2d 66, directed the trial court to make findings of fact as to whether the confessions were We set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals......
  • Doe v. Doe (In re Doe)
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2021
    ... ... Appeal ... from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the ... Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon ... Courtnie R. Tucker, Magistrate ... Judgment ... terminating parental rights, affirmed ... ...
  • Doe v. Doe (In re Doe)
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • August 31, 2023
    ... ...           Appeal ... from the Magistrate Division of the District Court of the ... Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon ... Courtnie R. Tucker, Magistrate ...          Judgment ... terminating Doe's parental ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT