State v. Reese
| Decision Date | 30 June 2000 |
| Citation | 26 S.W.3d 323 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) . State of Missouri, Appellant v. Kim Reese, Respondent Case Number: ED77584 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Hon. Donald L. McCullin
Counsel for Appellant: Robert Dawid
Counsel for Respondent: Eric Affholter
Opinion Summary: The state appeals a trial court order suppressing an oral and a written statement by defendant Reese.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Division Five holds: The trial court unnecessarily found that Reese was in custody, but it did not address the essential question of whether the Reese was being interrogated at the time the confession was made. The prophylactic rule of Miranda does not apply, as in this case, where the admission was given spontaneously and without any indication of police pressure.
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Russell, C.J., and Crahan, J., concur.
The state appeals the order of the circuit court sustaining the defendant's motion to suppress an oral and a written statement by the defendant. The appeal is authorized by Section 547.200.3 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1998) permitting interlocutory appeals from orders suppressing confessions or admissions. We reverse and remand. The able briefing and argument by counsel for both sides have been helpful to us.
The defendant was approached by uniformed police officers who had been called because of a check she had presented to a currency exchange. The officers requested assistance and two detectives arrived. Detective Terrell Robinson told the defendant that further investigation was required and asked her to go to police headquarters. She agreed and was given a ride in a police vehicle. She was not given a Miranda warning.
She was taken to an interview room at police headquarters, where the detectives explained to her
The defendant then made a statement reported by Detective Robinson, as follows:
She told us that she didn't want to waste our time, that she needed to make some money, and that she knew that the check was no good.
The officers then gave her a Miranda warning. She said that she understood her rights, and they questioned her. She made an oral statement, admitting guilt of forging the check in question. She was then again notified of her Miranda rights and signed a written statement.
Although the defendant could have testified giving her version of the events, and her testimony could not have been used against her in any other proceeding, State v. Samuels, 965 S.W.2d 913, 917 (Mo.App. 1998), she did not take the stand. Detective Robinson was the only witness.
The trial judge found that the defendant was in custody when she made her initial admission, and that this admission, given without Miranda warnings, tainted the later statements. The state argues that she was not in custody at the time, because she voluntarily agreed to accompany the officers. We need not decide whether or not she was in custody, for reasons which will later appear. We suggest, however, that it would be good practice to tell persons in her position that they would be free to leave if they so desired. Otherwise the prudent course is to give the Miranda warnings.
The prophylactic rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), comes into play only if there is an interrogation. The record before us shows no indication of questioning. What it shows, rather, is that after Detective Robertson explained the purpose of his investigation, the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brooks
...would have been nothing wrong with that; it might have been practically shrewd as well as legally appropriate. See State v. Reese, 26 S.W.3d 323, 324 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (suggesting that it would be prudent to inform individuals going to the station for interview either that they are free to......
-
Juvenile Officer v. A.G.R. (In re A.G.R.)
...446 U.S. 291, 300, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980). See also Gregg v. State, 446 S.W.2d 630, 632 (Mo.1969); State v. Reese, 26 S.W.3d 323, 324–25 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). ...
-
State v. Stacy, WD 61945.
...rights were spontaneously and voluntarily made without any police questioning and were, therefore, admissible. See State v. Reese, 26 S.W.3d 323, 324-25 (Mo.App.2000). Mr. Stacy's other statements were made after he was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. Because both the methamphetam......
-
State v. Cole
...a spontaneous admission, not the result of police "interrogation" in violation of Miranda, and therefore admissible. See State v. Reese, 26 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Mo.App.2000) (where police explained the purpose of the questioning and suspect confessed before Miranda rights were given, the court ......