State v. Pyles

• Decision Date: 04 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2012–045,2012–045
• Citation: 90 A.3d 1228,166 N.H. 166
• Parties: The STATE of New Hampshire v. David PYLES
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

166 N.H. 166
90 A.3d 1228

The STATE of New Hampshire
v.
David PYLES

No. 2012–045

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued: November 7, 2013
Opinion Issued: April 4, 2014

Joseph A. Foster, attorney general (Nicholas Cort, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.

Thomas Barnard, assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.

HICKS, J.

166 N.H. 167

The defendant, David Pyles, appeals his convictions, following a jury trial in Superior Court (McHugh, J.), on three counts of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault, see RSA 632–A:2, III (2007), arguing that the Trial Court (Mohl, J.) erred in denying his motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm.

We recite the facts as stated in the trial court's order on the motion to suppress or as supported by the record. On January 14, 2010, Detective Michael Bernard of the Salem Police Department called the defendant and requested that he come to the police station to talk about allegations of sexual abuse that had been made against him. The defendant complied. Once at the police station, the defendant was taken into an interview room where he was joined by Salem Police Detective Mark Donohue and Bernard. Bernard informed the defendant that the interview was being recorded and began reading him his Miranda rights from a standard form. After reading all of the rights provisions, the detective neglected to read the final provision regarding waiver of those rights. That provision stated: "HOWEVER You may waive the right to advice of counsel and your right to remain silent and answer questions or make a statement without

166 N.H. 168

consulting a lawyer if you so desire." (Quotation omitted.) Instead, Bernard stated: "[B]asically what this is is a waiver that I need you to sign in order for me to talk to you."

The defendant asked if he was being arrested, and Donahue replied that he was. The defendant inquired about the charges against him and claimed that he did not know what was going on. He also expressed concern about losing his job.

90 A.3d 1230

Donahue told the defendant that he would have to sign the waiver form if he wished to speak with the detectives. After informing the defendant he was charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault, Bernard stated that he and Donahue wanted to discuss the charges with him "to get [his] side of the story." Donahue then advised the defendant that if he "were going to try to help [him]self, this is probably the right time to do it."

The defendant again said he had no idea what the allegations against him were. Bernard stated that the detectives could not "really get into that," at which point Donahue added "unless you want to talk about it." Donahue also reminded the defendant, however, that he could "stop at any time."

After an inquiry about bail, the defendant commented on the gravity of the charge against him. Donahue again stated that it would be a good time for the defendant to "help [him]self." The defendant stated he would sign the waiver "for now" and did so. Bernard asked the defendant if he understood everything that had been read to him, to which the defendant responded, "Yeah." Bernard also offered that the form could be reread, which the defendant declined.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because "the manifest weight of the evidence reflected a reasonable doubt as to whether [he] knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights." The defendant invokes his state and federal constitutional rights against self-incrimination. See N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 15 ; U.S. CONST. amends. V, XIV. We first address the defendant's claim under the State Constitution and rely upon federal law only to aid our analysis. State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226, 231–33, 471 A.2d 347 (1983).

Before a statement can be admitted into evidence, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was apprised of his or her constitutional rights and that the subsequent waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. On appeal, we will not reverse the trial court's finding on the issue of waiver unless the manifest weight of the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is to the contrary.

166 N.H. 169

State v. Chrisicos , 148 N.H. 546, 548, 813 A.2d 513 (2002) (quotations, citation, and brackets omitted).

The defendant first argues that "it was both coercive and deceptive for the police to tell [him] that they could not provide information about the accusation unless he waived his Miranda rights." He concedes that the police could have refused to provide information about the allegations against him "without regard to whether he waived his Miranda rights." See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987) (noting that the Supreme Court has never held, and declined to hold in that case, "that mere silence by law enforcement officials as to the subject matter of an interrogation is ‘trickery’ sufficient to invalidate a suspect's waiver of Miranda rights"); State v. Jones, 125 N.H. 490, 493, 484 A.2d 1070 (1984) (noting that Miranda "states no requirement to warn about the specific charges that prompt the questioning"). He argues, however, that what the police could not do was make provision of the information contingent upon his waiver of those rights.

The defendant likens his case to State v. Jones, 2009 WL 17934 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2009), in which, during a custodial interrogation, the defendant "asked numerous times why he was arrested

90 A.3d 1231

without receiving an answer from the detectives." Jones, 2009 WL 17934, at *1. As one of the detectives began reading the defendant his Miranda rights, the defendant invoked his right to counsel. Id. The detective then stated, " ‘Okay, now, I can't answer you,’ " and he and the other detective present left the room. Id. They returned shortly and one detective "told defendant he was being charged with attempted murder, but stated they could not talk to him since he had asked for an attorney." Id. In upholding the suppression of the defendant's subsequent statements, the Jones court noted:

It seems clear to us that the strategy employed by the investigators was designed to provoke the response that actually occurred, i.e., defendant became agitated and asked what the case was about. The officers dangled the specter of defendant's prior invocation of his rights as an impediment to any further information, and recited for a second time the Miranda rights from the form card, this time securing defendant's answers and signature.

Id. at *6.

We do not find Jones as similar as the defendant contends. First, this case does not present the issue of the detectives' failure to "scrupulously honor" the defendant's...