State v. Rejholec
| Citation | 398 Wis.2d 729,963 N.W.2d 121,2021 WI App 45 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2020AP56-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel J. REJHOLEC, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Joseph N. Ehmann, regional attorney manager, office of the state public defender of Madison.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Sara L. Shaeffer, assistant attorney general, and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general.
Before Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Davis, JJ.
¶1 Daniel J. Rejholec was informed of and waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), prior to his custodial interrogation. Rejholec repeatedly denied the accusations of his interrogator for the first half of his interrogation. One hour and seven minutes into the interrogation, the interrogator told Rejholec that he would be unable to testify at trial if he obtained a lawyer:
The interrogator repeated this misrepresentation a few minutes later, telling Rejholec, "I'm trying to give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story before it's too late to be able to do that." Rejholec thereafter gave incriminating statements.
¶2 Rejholec moved to suppress his statements on both Miranda and State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke , 27 Wis. 2d 244, 133 N.W.2d 753 (1965), grounds. An accused's rights during a custodial interrogation can be violated in one of two ways: (1) the government fails to give or inadequately informs an accused of the warnings and advisements required by Miranda before or during a custodial interrogation, and the accused fails to waive his or her rights (a Miranda waiver challenge); or (2) the government utilizes improper pressures against the accused, causing his or her statements to be involuntary (a Goodchild statement challenge). See State v. Santiago , 206 Wis. 2d 3, 12, 18, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996) ; State v. Jiles , 2003 WI 66, ¶¶25-26, 262 Wis. 2d 457, 663 N.W.2d 798. The circuit court found Rejholec's statements voluntary but did not address his waiver.
¶3 Rejholec appeals from his judgment of conviction for repeated sexual assault of the same child, pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 948.025(1)(e) (2019-20),1 and from the circuit court's order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse. We agree that Rejholec's statement ( Goodchild challenge) was voluntary, but we conclude that Rejholec's waiver ( Miranda challenge) became invalid when his interrogator misrepresented his right to silence, his right to counsel, and his right to testify at trial. Accordingly, we remand with directions that the circuit court grant Rejholec's suppression motion.
¶4 We begin with a brief statement of facts, relate the pertinent portions of Rejholec's custodial interrogation and suppression hearing, set forth our standard of review, address interrogation law, and analyze Rejholec's Goodchild and Miranda challenges.
¶5 Rejholec was arrested on probable cause of sexually assaulting the fourteen-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. He was taken into custody and interrogated by Sheboygan Police Detective Eric Edson. The relevant facts for this appeal are all found within the video recording of the interrogation and will be related below. Rejholec does not dispute that prior to questioning, he was properly Mirandized and consented to questioning. Rejholec moved to suppress his custodial statements, via a Miranda / Goodchild hearing, on the ground that his confession was coerced and involuntary given the tactics used by Edson. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Rejholec's motion. Rejholec pled no contest2 and now appeals.3
¶6 Rejholec's interrogation lasted one hour and thirty-six minutes.4 The first accusation of sexual assault/contact was made thirty minutes into the interrogation. Rejholec denied having sexual contact with the child and told Edson that the child was "a compulsive little liar" and "all she does is lie," including about Rejholec "touching her." Edson then falsely told Rejholec that police had collected semen from the child's abdomen and vagina. Rejholec denied that any semen found on the child would be his. Edson countered, "What if it did come back to match your DNA, how would you explain that?" Rejholec replied, "I have nothing to worry about, there's nothing on her."
¶8 Forty-nine minutes into the interrogation, Rejholec asked for a restroom break, and when the interrogation resumed Edson asked Rejholec, "So where do you want to start?" Rejholec agreed that the child was "pretty sexual for her age," and he explained that she did try "to put moves on [him]" but that he did not "give in to her." Edson responded, "When was the first time you ever had any sexual contact with her?" Rejholec said he did not have any sexual contact with the child. Edson then replied,
¶9 At the fifty-five minute mark, Edson repeated his lie about the police taking "swabs of various different sources from [the child's] body" as well as samples from "clothing as well as from bedsheets." Edson told Rejholec that "DNA evidence ... doesn't lie." Edson continued, to which Rejholec responded,
Edson then repeated his earlier threat, stating,
¶11 At the one hour seven minute mark, Edson told Rejholec:
[O]nce we are done talking, you and I are not going to have another chance to talk, [Rejholec]. Ok. Cause most likely you'll get an attorney, either through a public defender or you will hire an attorney yourself, and the first thing that attorney is going to tell you is you're not going to talk to the police anymore. You're not going to get a chance to tell your story. So the jury is never going to hear your side of the story.
(Emphasis added.)
When Rejholec denied the accusation that his penis was in the child's mouth, Edson accused Rejholec of "moving backwards" and reiterated that
¶13 Rejholec then asked, "What about having a lawyer involved?" Edson said, "I'm trying to give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story before it's too late to be able to do that...." Edson continued, "I'm here just to get the facts and to support your end of this to tell your story ," followed by a threat to tell the district attorney that Rejholec "lied" and "obstructed." (Emphasis added.) Edson concluded by telling Rejholec that "you know, right now, I'm the one that is going to be able to help you the most I think by telling your story. " (Emphasis added.) Rejholec...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hudson
...often referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. U.S. Const. amend. V;[4]State v. Rejholec, 2021 WI.App. 45, ¶18, 398 Wis.2d 729, 963 N.W.2d 121. To that privilege, the State may not use statements stemming from an accused's custodial interrogation at a subsequent trial unless......
-
State v. Hudson
...often referred to as the privilege against self-incrimination. U.S. Const. amend. V;[4]State v. Rejholec, 2021 WI.App. 45, ¶18, 398 Wis.2d 729, 963 N.W.2d 121. To that privilege, the State may not use statements stemming from an accused's custodial interrogation at a subsequent trial unless......
-
State v. Yoakum
...of Miranda for the purpose of impeaching his trial testimony with prior inconsistent statements given to the police. See State v. Rejholec, 2021 WI.App. 45, ¶27 n.10, 398 Wis.2d 729, 963 N.W.2d 121 statement of the defendant made without the appropriate Miranda warnings, although inadmissib......
-
State v. Alvarado
...defendant testifies to matters contrary to what is in the excluded statement." See State v. Rejholec, 2021 WI.App. 45, ¶27 n.10, 398 Wis.2d 729, 963 N.W.2d 121 State v. Mendoza, 96 Wis.2d 106, 118, 291 N.W.2d 478 (1980)). That is precisely what happened here. The State acknowledged that it ......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...to testify in court at his trial; the appellate court found the Miranda waiver invalid under these circumstances. State v. Rejholec , 963 N.W.2d 121 (Wisc. App. 2021). Another way in which police sometimes undermine Miranda warnings is by telling a suspect that although he has a right to co......