State v. Morillo
| Decision Date | 16 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-4-C.A.,K1,16-369C |
| Citation | 285 A.3d 995 |
| Parties | STATE v. Josue MORILLO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Christopher R. Bush, Department of Attorney General, for State.
Michael S. Pezzullo, Esq., for Defendant.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
In the early morning hours of March 26, 2016, Michael Rogers and David Rogers were stabbed in their home in Warwick, Rhode Island, as they slept in their beds. Michael died.1 The state appeals from a Superior Court order that granted a motion to suppress two statements given by the defendant, Josue Morillo (defendant or Morillo), to Warwick police detectives in the course of their investigation. The state argues that the trial justice erred in suppressing statements based on his findings that (1) the defendant was in custody when he voluntarily accompanied the detectives in an unmarked vehicle to search for evidence; (2) the defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; and (3) the defendant's video-recorded statement, made after his arrest and additional Miranda warnings, was inadmissible in accordance with Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004).
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we vacate the order of the Superior Court and remand this case for limited factual determination by the trial justice consistent with this decision.
On the morning of March 26, 2016, Detective Gilda Fortier of the Warwick Police Department was called into work and learned that two people were stabbed at 149 Haswill Street, one of whom suffered life-threatening injuries. The sole suspect at the time—Jared Rogers (Rogers), a family member—was taken into custody that afternoon.
On March 29, 2016, Warwick detectives learned of three potential witnesses, Andrew Soben (Soben), John Ingram (Ingram), and defendant. Detective Fortier and Detective Thomas DiGregorio2 were assigned to locate and interview Morillo. The detectives stopped at defendant's residence and, after speaking with his sister, were able to connect with Morillo by telephone. The detectives informed Morillo that, in the course of their investigation, he was identified as a potential witness to the incident at 149 Haswill Street. Morillo was asked to come to the police headquarters to speak with them. Morillo agreed.
After waiting a half-hour or so, Det. Fortier called Morillo again to check on his expected arrival; however, Morillo had already been located at Ingram's house in Cranston by Sergeant Falcofsky, who was tasked with locating Ingram. Morillo and Soben followed Sgt. Falcofsky to police headquarters in Soben's car, arriving at approximately 1:35 p.m. Detectives Fortier and DiGregorio conducted a series of interviews with Morillo throughout the afternoon.3 The facts as relayed by Morillo changed in each iteration, culminating in a full confession of his participation in this homicide.
Detective Fortier testified that the first interview commenced around 2 p.m.—approximately twenty-five minutes after Morillo arrived at the station. Morillo was taken into an interview room, where he was asked how he was acquainted with Rogers and what he knew about the incident that took place on March 26. During this initial interview, the detectives learned that Morillo was with Soben and Ingram in Soben's car on the night of the stabbing, when they received a telephone call from Jake Cabral (Cabral). Cabral asked them to pick him up in North Providence, pick Rogers up from Kent Hospital, and give Rogers a ride home to 149 Haswill Street. According to defendant, upon arriving at Haswill Street, Soben boosted Rogers through his bedroom window and returned to the car, at which point Soben, with Morillo, Ingram, and Cabral, drove away—only to receive a telephone call moments later from Rogers asking them to pick him up from the parking lot at Warwick Veterans Memorial High School. Morillo indicated that they complied, and the group then headed towards North Providence to drop off Cabral and Rogers. Morillo told the detectives that, while driving to North Providence, Rogers may have thrown some knives out of the vehicle's window.
Detective Fortier testified that upon learning that knives may have been discarded and realizing that Morillo appeared to know more about the incident than they originally thought, the detectives explained that they were going to conduct a second interview with an audio recording device.
Approximately one hour after the first interview began, at 2:58 p.m., Det. DiGregorio commenced an audio-recorded interview by asking Morillo whether he (1) came to the police station voluntarily; (2) was giving a statement "freely of [his] own accord"; and (3) realized that he was free to leave at any time. Morillo answered each question in the affirmative. Detective DiGregorio also stated to Morillo: "You realize * * * you're not gonna be charged with this as long as you provide * * * correct, accurate information." Morillo recounted many of the same details from the first interview; however, he added that at Rogers's request, Soben went into the house with Rogers at 149 Haswill Street to pick a lock to an inside door and came out after six to eight minutes, followed by a "worked-up" Rogers minutes later. In this second iteration, the group left Haswill Street together and headed towards North Providence.
Morillo also disclosed that, approximately a quarter-mile to a half-mile down Airport Connector Road from Post Road, he saw Rogers pull two kitchen knives out of his sweatshirt pocket and throw the knives toward the side of the roadway. Morillo described the two knives; one was only the handle of a knife, with a "wooden tip" and "two stainless steel dots on it[,]" and "the blade was completely off"; the other was a smaller black kitchen knife, with the blade still intact. Morillo also believed that Rogers threw a cell phone out of the window of the car on Interstate 95 in the proximity of the Providence Place Mall. When asked by Det. DiGregorio whether Morillo would be willing to go with the detectives to show them where the knives might be located, Morillo agreed. The recorded interview concluded at 3:32 p.m.
Immediately after the second interview ended, Morillo, without handcuffs, along with Dets. Fortier and DiGregorio and Sergeant Scott Robillard, exited through the rear of police headquarters to an unmarked detective's car. Morillo opened the rear door and let himself into the vehicle. Detective Fortier sat in the back seat next to Morillo; Det. DiGregorio sat in the front passenger's seat; and, Sgt. Robillard drove. Morillo told the officers where to stop to search for the knives; he exited the unlocked door, and walked alongside the road, searching for the knives. Unsuccessful, the group returned to the vehicle and headed toward the Providence Place Mall in another futile attempt to locate Rogers's cell phone in or on the side of the interstate.
Detective Fortier testified that Morillo began to appear nervous and unsure of himself and that the detectives began to notice inconsistencies in his story, at which point Det. DiGregorio advised Morillo of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).4 Detective Fortier documented the time as 5:10 p.m., as reflected in her police narrative. According to Det. DiGregorio's testimony, because of the inconsistencies in Morillo's statements and the inability to corroborate his story about knives or a cell phone, at 5:10 p.m., while the vehicle was in Providence, he decided to advise Morillo of his rights.5 Detective DiGregorio turned around in the vehicle and advised Morillo of his Miranda rights in their entirety. According to the testimony of both Det. Fortier and Det. DiGregorio, when asked if he understood those rights, Morillo answered, "Yes." The defendant, on the other hand, testified that he had no memory that Det. DiGregorio was present in the police vehicle and no memory of having been advised of his rights.
Detective Fortier testified that the detectives then expressed their belief to Morillo that he was being untruthful and that "he was coming across as [if] he was obstructing." Detective Fortier further testified that, until the point when Morillo was advised of his Miranda rights, she would have permitted him to leave if he wished to do so, because he was thought to be a witness.
On the way back to headquarters the detectives learned that Morillo might have thrown a knife from Soben's car onto Main Avenue in Warwick after the stabbing. Thus, the group proceeded to Main Avenue, where a patrol vehicle was already on the scene. According to Det. DiGregorio, the drive from Providence to Main Avenue took approximately ten to fifteen minutes. Sergeant Robillard and Det. DiGregorio exited the vehicle to look for a knife, and Det. Fortier and Morillo remained in the back seat. Detective Fortier testified that while in the back seat with Morillo she stated, According to Det. Fortier, Morillo then stated: "I know" and "I stabbed David."6 At this point, Morillo was arrested, placed in the patrol vehicle, and transported back to police headquarters, arriving at approximately 6:00 p.m.
At around 6:30 p.m., approximately thirty minutes after arriving at police headquarters, the detectives commenced an audio-video recorded interview with Morillo. Detective DiGregorio began by asking Morillo (1) whether he came to the station earlier that afternoon of his own free will; (2) when he arrived at the station that day, whether he understood he was free to leave; and (3) if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial