State v. Miles

• Decision Date: 03 May 1996
• Docket Number: No. CR-93-0333-AP,CR-93-0333-AP
• Citation: State v. Miles, 186 Ariz. 10, 918 P.2d 1028 (Ariz. 1996)
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Kevin Artice MILES, Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 1028

918 P.2d 1028

186 Ariz. 10

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v.Kevin Artice MILES, Appellant.

No. CR-93-0333-AP.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

May 3, 1996.

[186 Ariz. 12] Grant Woods, Attorney General by Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section, Monica D. Beerling, former Attorney General, Phoenix, for the State of Arizona.

James U. Glanville, Tucson, for Kevin Artice Miles.

OPINION

MARTONE, Justice.

Kevin Miles was convicted of first degree murder, one count of dangerous kidnapping, and one count of dangerous armed robbery.The trial court sentenced Miles to death for the murder and to prison terms for the noncapital convictions.Appeal to this court is automatic.SeeRules 26.15and31.2(b), Ariz.R.Crim.P.;A.R.S. § 13-4031.We affirm the convictions and sentences.

FACTS

On December 7, 1992, Patricia Baeuerlen drove out of her apartment complex and stopped at the intersection of 24th Street and Columbus Avenue in Tucson.Miles, Levi Jackson, and Ray Hernandez were standing near the stop sign.Jackson approached her car and asked for a "light."Vol. Hr'g., Tr., Tape 3at 31.As she looked away, Jackson pulled out a gun and ordered her to "scoot over."Id.Miles, Jackson, and Hernandez then got into the car.

Jackson drove to a desert area on the southeast side of Tucson.Miles held the gun on the victim for a time.After they got to the desert, Jackson shot and killed her.See the companion case of State v. Jackson, 186 Ariz. 20, 918 P.2d 1038(1996).Miles then took the car and left for Phoenix the next day.The Chandler Police arrested him in the early hours of December 9, 1993, after a high speed chase.He had the victim's ATM card, credit card, and personal effects in his possession.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Miles raises the following issues:

A.Trial Issues

1.Did the trial court err in admitting Miles's statements to police detectives?

2.Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on felony murder?

3.Did the trial court err in denying Miles's motion to change venue?

B.Sentencing Issues

1.Was Enmund/ Tison satisfied?

2.Was the murder in expectation of pecuniary gain (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(5))?

3.Was the murder committed in an especially cruel manner (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6))?

4.Was the murder committed in a heinous or depraved manner (A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6))?

5.Was Miles's ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law significantly impaired (A.R.S. § 13-703(G)(1))?

6.Is Arizona's death penalty statute constitutional?

7.Did the trial court improperly count A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(6) twice?

TRIAL ISSUES

A. Voluntariness of Defendant's Statement

Miles argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by not suppressing his statements to police detectives.He claims that his statements were involuntary for two reasons.First, he contends that his intoxication rendered him incapable of understanding the meaning of his statements.Second, he claims that one of the detectives forced him to talk by implicitly promising him lenient treatment.

The state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that confessions are freely and voluntarily given.State v. Tucker, 157 Ariz. 433, 444, 759 P.2d 579, 590(1988).We examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding a confession.State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 603, 886 P.2d 1354, 1359(1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 210, 133 L.Ed.2d 142(1995).

1.Intoxication

Testimony at trial revealed that Miles had drunk approximately 80 ounces of beer the day before his arrest.He drank at a party on the night of his arrest.Additionally, he claims he had been on a "drug spree" for several days before the murder.He argues that the court should have suppressed his statements because he was "impaired by substance abuse at the onset of the questioning."Opening Briefat 11.

There is no evidence to support a finding that Miles was intoxicated at the time of questioning.He was arrested by the Chandler Police around 3:00 a.m. after a high speed chase.The arresting officer testified that Miles had a "faint odor of alcoholic beverage" on his breath.Tr.Sept. 1, 1993at 54.However, the officer did not believe Miles was intoxicated.After Miles crashed the car, he jumped out and began running.He was able to hold up his oversized shorts with one hand and run in a straight line.After his arrest, the officer escorted Miles back to the police vehicles and noticed no balance problems.He was then put in a police car and fell asleep.Around 4:00 a.m., the police took him to the Chandler Police Station and put him in a holding cell, where he apparently went back to sleep.

Tucson Police detectives woke him up around 9:30 a.m. the next day.A detective asked him whether he needed time to wake up.Miles replied that he was "okay."Tr.April 28, 1993at 85.He was then taken to an interview room where he was given Miranda warnings.He stated that he understood his rights and waived them.He gave his name, date of birth, social security number, and prior addresses.The detectives said that Miles was not intoxicated when they started talking to him.Early in the interview, Miles was asked whether he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.He replied that he was "clear headed," not "inebriated," and understood the officers.Vol. Hr'g., Tr., Tape 1at 2-3, 13.Even if Miles had been intoxicated when he was arrested, there is no evidence that he was intoxicated 6 hours later at his interrogation.We find no error.

2.Police Coercion--Implied Promise

Miles also claims that his statements were not voluntary because they were made in response to an implied promise of leniency from the police.Miles raises this argument for the first time on appeal, and therefore has waived it.But even if the issue were not waived, there is no evidence of police coercion.

"A confession resulting from a promise is involuntary if (1) police make an express or implied promise and (2)the defendant relies on the promise in confessing.Advice to tell the truth, unaccompanied by either a threat or promise, does not make a confession involuntary."Ross, 180 Ariz. at 603, 886 P.2d at 1359.The police interrogated Miles under the following conditions.The interview lasted 5 hours, between 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.The detectives gave Miles food, drinks, restroom breaks, and cigarettes.During the breaks, Miles was left alone and appeared to fall asleep twice.Each time, Miles woke up on his own and did not appear "whoozy" or "groggy."Tr.Apr. 12, 1993at 67-68, 80, 86, 89.

Miles claims the following statements show an implied promise of leniency:

Q [by Detective O'Connor]: All right I'm going to drop a bombshell on you, ok, that day that, the murder occurred out there, it was muddy out there and we got shoe print impressions, ok, and they're gonna be compared against your shoes.You got a problem with that Kevin?

A [by Miles]: No.

Q [by Detective Clark]: They look the same.

A [by Miles]: It doesn't matter.

Q: And you've got the same defects in your, your shoe and that's what they check, you know, your shoe's worn down on one side.

A: (inaudible).

Q: Yeah, on the, like do you wear it on the side like ... well mine is that way but you see I walk and the heel is a little bit down, yeah that one's like that too.Do you want to change your story now about those shoes out there?

Kevin, let me ask you somethin'.The shoe prints there and your shoe prints here look, you know just by my eye and his eye, look pretty close.Is it possible that maybe this white guy [Jackson] was the shooter and you were there with'em?

A: I wasn't there.

Q: Did you witness the shooting?

A: No sir.

Q: Were you in that desert where that lady got shot?

A: No.

Q: Kevin, this is the time for you to, to come clean with us bud, because if, I don't want to see you go away for a murder charge if you were just there and you saw it, no ... here's your chance to tell us, hey I, I told the just, just, you know tell her to take her shoes off.

A: Alright, alright, yeah, I seen it.

Q: What happened bud?

A: He did it, he did it.

Q: Did you see him shoot the lady?

A: Yeah.I saw him shoot her.

Vol. Hr'g., Tr., Tape 3at 23-24(emphasis added).

Detective Clark did not make a promise to Miles.Instead, he stated a fact: If Miles was "just there," then he would not be guilty of murder.SeeState v. Lopez, 174 Ariz. 131, 138, 847 P.2d 1078, 1085(1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 894, 114 S.Ct. 258, 126 L.Ed.2d 210(1993)(detective's statement that he would not discuss the interview with the victim's mother or play a tape of it was a statement of fact and not a promise).

Miles had already told them that the victim was forced to remove her shoes and coat with the apparent intention of leaving her stranded in the desert.Miles claimed he was speaking from the third-person perspective as told him by Jackson.The detectives believed Miles's information came from first-hand knowledge.Thus, Detective Clark's statement, "I don't want to see you go away for a murder charge if you were just there and you saw it," was a statement of fact based on information Miles gave him.The detective's statement foreshadowed Miles's defense at trial.He claimed he was just present during the murder and that he lacked the necessary intent for the underlying felonies of robbery and kidnapping.

Nor did Miles rely upon Clark's words in making his statement.Clark testified that throughout his interview Miles followed a pattern of admitting facts he believed the police already knew or could easily verify.For example, Miles said he used the victim's ATM card only once in Phoenix; but when the detectives told him that they could verify the use of the card through bank records, he admitted using the card more than once and in Tucson.Miles insisted that he had obtained the victim's car in Phoenix on Tuesday; but when the detectives said they could investigate whether he was seen in the car before...