State v. Plouffe
| Decision Date | 15 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-94,81-94 |
| Citation | 646 P.2d 533,39 St.Rep. 1064,198 Mont. 379 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell Ross PLOUFFE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Hood & Sherwood, Randi Hood, argued, Missoula, for defendant and appellant.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., J. Mark Murphy, argued, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert L. Deschamps, III, County Atty., Ed McLean, argued, Deputy County Atty., Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant, Darrell R. Plouffe, appeals his deliberate homicide conviction and the denial by the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, of his motion to suppress statements he made to police.
On June 6, 1980, defendant was arrested for parole violation. On June 9, 1980, defendant was charged with deliberate homicide, as provided in section 45-5-102, MCA. Defendant was arraigned before a Missoula County Justice of the Peace on June 10, 1980, and, on that same day, the parole violation charge was dropped.
On July 14, 1980, an information was filed charging defendant with deliberate homicide. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Defendant's motion to suppress statements given to the police was denied by the District Court on September 8, 1980.
A jury trial was held from September 15 to 19; a guilty verdict was returned on September 19. Defendant made several motions to dismiss: the first at the close of the State's case; the second at the close of his own case; and the third after the guilty verdict was returned. All motions to dismiss were denied by the District Court. Defendant was sentenced to forty years in the Montana State Prison, with twenty years suspended.
In the early afternoon of June 5, 1980, Rena Evans was found dead in her trailer. The cause of death was manual strangulation, occurring sometime between 9:00 p. m. on June 4 and 6:47 a. m. on June 5.
The trailer was described generally as "neat as a pin," with no sign of a struggle having taken place. Evans was clothed in a red housecoat, zipped to the neck. A wallet was found underneath the couch in the trailer. The wallet contained the identification papers and the driver's license of the defendant, as well as the business card of the defendant's parole officer.
On the evening of June 5, the Missoula County Sheriff contacted the defendant's parole officer. On the grounds that defendant's wallet was found at the scene of a homicide, the parole officer authorized an oral parole violation warrant. A written warrant was executed on the morning of June 6.
On the morning of June 6, defendant was staying at the residence of Brett Tandy, Stacy Lavin and Joe Phelps, who lived at No. 9 South Caravan in a trailer court across from defendant's listed residence at No. 3 South Caravan. While at No. 9 South Caravan, on the morning of June 6, defendant mixed some Drano with milk and drank it. Defendant left behind a note which reads:
The last two sentences of the note are written with seemingly less control than the main body of the note.
Brett Tandy found defendant after he drank the Drano and called an ambulance. Defendant was taken to St. Patrick's Hospital that afternoon of June 6, 1980.
Two police officers talked with defendant in the hospital emergency room. The tape of this interview indicates that defendant was asked, "Can you tell me what happened and what did you take?" The defendant was unable to respond verbally. On the recording, the defendant can be heard gagging, clearing his throat, and spitting. The officer then asked defendant if he wished to write his answers. Evidently the defendant began to write his answers since a few minutes later the officer said, "So they will kill you, if you say anything." There is more writing and the officer asks, "Who's they?"
Testimony at the suppression hearing suggests that about this time the emergency room doctor entered and asked that the tape be turned off while he examined defendant.
After the tape recorder was turned back on, the officer informed defendant that he was at St. Patrick's Hospital and it was about 4:00 in the afternoon. At this point, the officer showed the defendant an advice of rights form and explained it to him. Upon asking defendant if he understood the form, the officer said, "... you're nodding yes, that you do understand those (the rights)." The defendant then signed the waiver of rights and proceeded to write his responses to police questions.
Including the interview at the emergency room, defendant was interviewed by authorities five times. He was interrogated by police in the evening of June 6, and again on June 7. Defendant's parole officer interviewed him on June 9. On June 26, defendant was again interrogated by police, but defendant had his attorneys present. Guards were assigned to watch defendant on the evening of June 6. Visitors and telephone calls were restricted.
The State, throughout its case, has emphasized the discrepancies in the statements given by defendant. Defendant's final narration of what happened on the night of June 4-5 is summarized as follows:
Defendant was out drinking with friends until the bars closed. In the early morning hours of June 5, he stopped at Evans' trailer. Defendant and Evans engaged in sexual intercourse. Soon thereafter, two men entered the residence. One man was wearing a burgundy long-sleeve down jacket and blue jeans; the only clothing defendant could remember about the second man was that he was also wearing blue jeans.
The man in the goose down jacket walked over to Evans; talked with her, and slapped her. At this time, the second man pulled defendant to the floor and kicked him. Defendant was told not to say anything or he and his girlfriend, Janice, would get hurt.
Defendant then left Evans' trailer, went back to his trailer and drank some schnapps'. About a half hour later, he returned to Evans' trailer and found her lying face down on the floor. He turned her over, noticed that her face was dark, and thought he heard her gasping for breath. Thinking that she would be all right, defendant left the trailer.
He noticed that his wallet was missing and went with a friend to look for it in a bar parking lot, but they didn't find it.
The above statement differs from defendant's first three statements in that defendant first told police that two men, with possibly a third he heard in a back room, were already at Evans' house when he arrived. No mention was made of his having sexual intercourse with the victim. Instead of jeans, the defendant first told police the men were wearing jumpsuits. In the last two statements, defendant said that Evans was alone when he arrived, that they had sexual intercourse, and then the two men arrived.
Testimony indicated that after defendant left Evans' trailer the second time, he went to No. 9 South Caravan, where he had been staying. He slept for a while and in the evening of June 5 went to a movie. Also, on that evening, he was told by one of his roommates that Rena Evans had been found strangled. The next morning defendant was found after he drank the Drano.
The defendant has raised two basic issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to the police or his parole officer prior to June 10, 1980; and
2. Whether the District Court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss.
Four subsidiary issues were raised by defendant to support his argument that his motion to suppress was improperly denied:
A. Whether the State proved a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and right against self-incrimination by the defendant prior to interrogations conducted on June 6, 1980;
B. Whether subsequent statements made by defendant should have been suppressed under the "cat out of the bag" theory;
C. Whether the statements taken from defendant prior to June 10 are products of an arrest lacking probable cause; and
D. Whether defendant's statements should have been suppressed because of the State's unnecessary delay in taking the defendant before a judge.
The defendant first contends that the statements he made to police in the hospital emergency room on June 6, 1980, should have been suppressed because the State failed to show that defendant made a knowing waiver of his right to counsel and right against self-incrimination. Defendant claims that while there is a showing that he was read his rights, there is no showing that he understood them.
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently set down a two-pronged test to determine whether a defendant has made a valid waiver of his rights. In Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378, the Court said:
"... 101 S.Ct. at 1883-1884, 68 L.Ed.2d at 385.
This Court has recently outlined further relevant factors which must be considered in determining whether there has been a valid waiver:
"... ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...and arraignment occasioned by defendant's need for medical treatment “cannot be considered unnecessary”); State v. Plouffe, 198 Mont. 379, 646 P.2d 533, 534–35, 537 (1982) (delay in bringing defendant before magistrate not unreasonable where defendant hospitalized after ingesting poison); S......
-
City of Kalispell v. Salsgiver
...MT 277, ¶ 15, 362 Mont. 416, 264 P.3d 1146 (analyzing waiver in the context of the right to counsel) (quoting State v. Plouffe , 198 Mont. 379, 385, 646 P.2d 533, 536 (1982) (citing Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 482, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 1884, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) )). The State bears the ......
-
State v. Macgregor
...decision that the defendant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver, it will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Plouffe, 198 Mont. 379, 385, 646 P.2d 533, 536 (1982). ¶ 29 The District Court here ensured that MacGregor knew the disadvantages of self-representation, warning him th......
-
State v. Norgaard
...Court's findings, the District Court's conclusion that a valid waiver was effected will not be disturbed. State v. Plouffe (1982), Mont., 646 P.2d 533, 39 St.Rep. 1064. II. Defendant contends that the District Court erred when it refused to permit Howard Kelsey to testify to the fact that s......