State v. Rhines
| Decision Date | 28 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 18268,18268 |
| Citation | 1996 SD 55,548 N.W.2d 415 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Charles Russell RHINES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Mark Barnett, Attorney General, Grant Gormley, Craig M. Eichstadt, and Sherri Sundem Wald, and Gary Campbell, Assistant Attorneys. General, Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee.
Michael Stonefield, Pennington County Public Defender's Office, Joseph M. Butler of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, and Wayne F. Gilbert of Johnson Huffman, Rapid City, for defendant and appellant.
¶1 From the latter part of 1991 through February 1992, Charles Russell Rhines worked at the Dig 'Em Donut Shop on West Main Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. In February 1992 Rhines was terminated from this job.
¶2 On March 8, 1992, the body of Donnivan Schaeffer, an employee of Dig 'Em Donuts, was found in the storeroom of the donut shop on West Main Street. Schaeffer's hands were bound, and he had been repeatedly stabbed. Approximately $3,300 in cash, coins, and checks was missing from the store. Additional facts will be recited herein as they relate to specific issues.
¶3 The State charged Rhines with third-degree burglary of the store and first-degree murder of Schaeffer. A jury convicted him of these crimes. The jury recommended a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction. The trial court entered a judgment and warrant of execution. Rhines appeals. We affirm.
¶Did the trial court err by not suppressing incriminating statements made by Rhines to law enforcement officers on June 19 and 21, 1992?
¶5 At approximately 12:45 p.m. on June 19, 1992, Rhines was arrested in King County, Washington, for a burglary that occurred in that state. King County Police Officer Michael Caldwell read Rhines the following Miranda warning:
You have the right to remain silent. Number 2, anything you say or sign can be used as evidence against you in a court of law. Number 3, you have the right at this time to an attorney of your own choosing, and to have him present before saying or signing anything. Number 4, if you cannot afford an attorney, you are entitled to have an attorney appointed for you without cost to you and to have him present before saying and signing anything. Number 5, you have the right to exercise any of the above rights at any time before saying or signing anything. Do you understand each of these rights that I have explained to you?
According to Officer Caldwell, Rhines responded by asking something to the effect, "Those two detectives from South Dakota are here, aren't they?" Caldwell made no reply. Caldwell did not attempt to question Rhines, and Rhines made no further statements to Caldwell. Rhines was placed in a holding cell at a King County police station.
¶6 At 6:56 p.m. that same day, two South Dakota law enforcement officers, Detective Steve Allender of the Rapid City Police Department and Pennington County Deputy Sheriff Don Bahr, interrogated Rhines about the burglary of Dig 'Em Donuts and the murder of Schaeffer. Detective Allender testified that he advised Rhines of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him. The exchange between himself and Rhines is as follows:
Allender: You have the continuing right to remain silent. Do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: Anything you say can be used as evidence against you. Do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: You have the right to consult with and have the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney can be appointed for you free of charge. Do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: Having those rights in mind, are you willing to answer questions?
Rhines: Do I have a choice?
Allender testified he told Rhines he did have a choice and in fact Rhines did not have to talk with them at all. Allender then asked if Rhines wanted to talk with them and Rhines said, "I suppose so," and then said, "I'll answer any questions I like." Shortly thereafter, Rhines confessed to the burglary of Dig 'Em Donuts and to the killing of Schaeffer.
¶7 Approximately two hours later, Rhines gave the officers permission to tape record his statements. The following exchange occurred:
Allender: Ok. Um, do you remember me reading you your rights?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: In the beginning? Did you understand those rights?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: And uh, having those rights in mind you talked to us here?
Rhines: Yes I have.
During the taped portion of the interview, Rhines again made incriminating statements about the burglary of Dig 'Em Donuts and the killing of Schaeffer.
¶8 On June 21, 1992, Detective Allender and Deputy Sheriff Bahr posed additional questions to Rhines. This interview was tape recorded. Prior to questioning, Detective Allender had the following conversation with Rhines:
Allender: You have the continuing right to remain silent, do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: Anything you say can be used as evidence against you. Do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: You have the right to consult with and have the presence of an attorney, and if you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney can be appointed for you free of charge. Do you understand that?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: K. Just like the other night, having these rights in mind, are you willing to answer questions?
Rhines: Yes.
Allender: Ok. And that, in this case, it goes, if you don't like the question, it doesn't mean that you're supposed to answer it. You can always say stop, ok?
Rhines: I can take the 5th Amendment.
Allender: Exactly.
Rhines proceeded to make incriminating statements about the burglary of Dig 'Em Donuts and the death of Schaeffer.
¶9 Rhines filed a pretrial motion to suppress the incriminating statements made to the officers on June 19 and 21, 1992. After a hearing, the trial court denied this motion. At trial, Detective Allender testified regarding Rhines' statements during the untaped portion of the June 19, 1992, interview. Rhines entered a continuing objection to this testimony. Over Rhines' objection, the trial court also permitted the State to play the recordings of the interviews that took place on June 19 and 21, 1992. Rhines claims the trial court erred in admitting his statements.
¶10 Rhines argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress the incriminating statements he made during the June 19 and 21 interviews. He claims that the Miranda warnings recited to him were deficient for several reasons. He also asserts that he never gave a valid waiver of his Miranda rights. We will consider each of his contentions in turn.
¶11 Preliminarily, we reiterate that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part:
No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]
U.S. Const.Amend. V. 1 The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is implicated whenever an individual is subjected to a custodial interrogation by the police. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 726 (1966). To protect the privilege, law enforcement personnel must observe certain procedural safeguards. 384 U.S. at 478-79, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. In the absence of other equivalent procedures, law enforcement must advise a suspect as follows:
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. If the individual indicates at any time before or during questioning that he wishes to remain silent or that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must end. 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. at 1627-28, 16 L.Ed.2d at 723. If law enforcement fails to follow these or other equivalent procedures, the prosecution may not use statements made during a custodial interrogation as proof of guilt. 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d at 706.
¶12 Importantly, Miranda does not require that warnings be given in the exact form described in that decision. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 202, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 2880, 106 L.Ed.2d 166, 176 (1989). Evans v. Swenson, 455 F.2d 291, 295 (8th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 929, 92 S.Ct. 2508, 33 L.Ed.2d 342 (1972) (citations omitted).
¶1. The right to terminate questioning.
¶14 Rhines contends Detective Allender's warnings on June 19 and June 21, 1992, failed to advise him of his right to terminate questioning at any time. Rhines further argues that Officer Caldwell's earlier recitation, which includes such a warning, cannot be combined with Detective Allender's advisement to arrive at a sufficient warning. Rhines reasons that, since he never told Caldwell he understood the rights that Caldwell recited to him, the State failed to show that Rhines understood his right to terminate questioning.
¶15 Rhines points to State v. Brings Plenty, 459 N.W.2d 390 (S.D.1990), as support for his claim that the "continuing right to remain silent" warning was insufficient. In Brings Plenty, the trial court ruled that statements by the defendant which were coerced and involuntary could be used to impeach the defendant, should he testify. Id. at 394. On appeal, we reversed and granted the defendant a new trial on the grounds that involuntary statements are inadmissible for any purpose. Id. at 397.
¶16 In dicta, we criticized a warning that was essentially identical to the warning given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Addison
...that rely upon a death-and-life-imprisonment universe. Accord, e.g., Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 666; Webb, 680 A.2d at 210; State v. Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415, 455–56 (S.D.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1013, 117 S.Ct. 522, 136 L.Ed.2d 410 (1996) ; Satcher v. Com., 244 Va. 220, 421 S.E.2d 821, 845 (1992)......
-
State of Tn v. Godsey
...Tichnell, 468 A.2d at 15-16; see also Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d, 503, 515 (Mo. 1992); Smith, 931 P.2d 1272, 1285 (Mont. 1996); Rhines, 548 N.W.2d at 455-56. Accord, Flamer v. State, 490 A.2d 104, 139 (Del. 1983). Not included in the pool of similar cases are first degree murder cases in which t......
-
State v. Engesser
...suppress, State v. Nguyen, 1997 SD 47, ¶ 9, 563 N.W.2d 120, 122 (citations omitted), for decisions on admissibility of evidence, State v. Rhines, 1996 SD 55, ¶ 133, 548 N.W.2d 415, 446, for requests to give proposed jury instructions, State v. Wright, 1999 SD 50, ¶ 12, 593 N.W.2d 792, 797 (......
-
Moeller v. Weber
...for purposes of proportionality review are those cases in which capital sentencing proceeding was actually conducted See State v. Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415 (S.D.1996). The South Dakota Supreme Court rejected Moeller's contention that by restricting proportionality review to the decisions of ot......
-
The failure of comparative proportionality review of capital cases (with lessons from New Jersey).
...where the defendant was convicted of capital murder "under the same aggravating circumstance(s)"); South Dakota, see State v. Rhines, 548 N.W.2d 415, 455 (S.D. 1996) (conducting proportionality review of death penalty cases "to ascertain what other capital sentencing authorities have done w......