State v. S.G.

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: STARGEL, J.
• Citation: 379 So. 3d 584
• Docket Number: Case No. 6D23-520
• Decision Date: 09 February 2024
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. S.G., Appellee.

379 So.3d 584

STATE of Florida, Appellant,

v.S.G., Appellee.

Case No. 6D23-520

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District.

February 9, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County, Cassandra L. Denmark, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. CJ22-000471-XX

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Lily M. McCarty, of Todd Foster Law Group, Tampa, and Maria Pavlidis, of Pavlidis Law, LLC, Tampa, for Appellee.

STARGEL, J.

The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s May 27, 2022, Order on Motion to Suppress Statements entered in favor of Appellee, S.G., and petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s June 2, 2022, Order on Child’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Co-Conspirator Statements.¹ We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.145(c)(1)(B). Because we conclude the trial court erred in suppressing S.G.’s statements and in granting the Child’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Co-Conspirator Statements, we reverse.

Background

On March 16, 2022, a Polk County Sheriff’s Office detective investigated an incident that occurred at a school after a student reported to school personnel that some students were making threats against other students. The reporting student said he had seen S.G., M.O., and L.S. talking together and could not say whether this had anything to do with the threats which he later learned about. The detective testified that although law enforcement received the report, they had not yet determined if a crime had been committed. Upon arrival at S.G.’s home, the detective met with S.G.’s parents outside their home near the garage. The detective was not in uniform but had her badge on a chain around her neck. The detective told S.G. and her parents that law enforcement had received information of a possible threat against other children at S.G.’s school and she thought S.G. might have some information. While speaking to S.G., the detective said something along the lines of "it’s okay, sweetie, I’m just here to talk to you" and informed S.G. she was not in trouble. Because law enforcement had not established that any crime had been committed at that time, the detective did not tell S.G. that she was investigating her participation in a crime.

S.G. initially denied knowledge of any threats. When the detective asked S.G. if she had any text messages with someone named "M.O." on her phone, S.G. admitted she did. At the direction of her father, S.G. retrieved her phone from inside the house. S.G. opened the phone, looked at it, and said "this is embarrassing," before ultimately handing the phone to the detective. This occurred approximately fifteen minutes after the detective arrived at her house. S.G. explained that when M.O. texted her "who is first" and she replied "E.D.," that she was referencing an argument during after-care about boys, and that M.O. and E.D. had argued, so it was E.D. who they were going to talk with first the next day. S.G. told the detective that E.D. had bullied her. S.G. returned inside the house while the detective spoke with S.G.’s parents further about her concerns with that text message. S.G.’s father told the detective that it might be better if she spoke to S.G. alone. At that time, the only message the detective was aware of was M.O.’s text to S.G. "who is first" and S.G.’s reply "E.D."

Thereafter, the parents went inside and sent S.G. outside to speak with the detective alone. When S.G. returned outside, the detective told S.G. that she could tell S.G. was upset and that there was more to this. The detective inquired again about the message, and S.G. cried and admitted that she and M.O. had talked about killing E.D. and the text message was actually related to that topic. Approximately one hour after the detective arrived, she left S.G.’s home. The detective never told S.G. that she was free to leave because S.G. was already home and freely coming and going between the house and garage. The detective did not confront S.G. with evidence, nor did she use threatening language. At no time was the detective asked to leave by S.G. or her parents. At this point, the detective was unaware of the content of all the text message conversations. Some of the messages had been deleted from S.G.’s phone, and other messages were sent in the group chat after the detective left.

S.G. became a suspect in the investigation after the detective spoke with M.O., and after the group text message contin- ued. Evidence from another mobile phone in the investigation showed S.G. and other students making plans to harm another student. S.G. was taken into custody in the early morning hours of March 17, 2022, and on March 30, 2022, she was charged by delinquency petition with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder for the events that occurred on or about March 16, 2022.

I. Motion to Suppress

S.G. filed a motion to suppress the statements made to the detective on March 16, 2022. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the detective, S.G.’s mother and father, as well as a forensic psychologist, Dr. Randy Otto. Dr. Otto testified as an expert, and indicated he evaluated S.G. and found that her ability to waive Miranda² rights voluntarily and knowingly would not be comparable to an adult making that decision, in part due to her being only thirteen years of age, and, in part due to deficits that he found pursuant to his evaluation. Dr. Otto opined that S.G.’s understanding of and ability to exercise her constitutional right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination was limited at the time she was questioned by the detective, and that as a function of her age, she was more likely to comply with the requests and demands of a law enforcement officer than an adult. Dr. Otto did not, however, have any concerns regarding S.G.’s competence to proceed. Although S.G. does have an Individualized Education Plan at school, her challenges appear to be more with written language as opposed to audible language. S.G. has no intellectual disability, she is not on the autism spectrum, and she does not have ADHD. S.G.’s IQ screening test placed her in the average range of intelligence.

S.G.’s mother testified that she was not aware S.G. was the subject of a criminal investigation at the time the detective came to their home, and that if she had been aware, she would not have allowed S.G. to speak with the detective. S.G.’s father testified that he allowed S.G. to speak with the detective because he was told she was not in trouble, and that the detective needed her help. He testified he was in the garage with S.G.’s mother, the detective, and S.G., and heard the initial conversation between the detective and S.G., and subsequently asked S.G. to go inside and get her phone. S.G.’s father testified that the detective informed him that this was her first stop and that she was going to speak to other children regarding the incident. The detective asked and was granted permission to take S.G.’s phone with her. S.G.’s father testified that the detective was not threatening or intimidating.

Standard of Review

[1–4] According to S.G., Grasle v. State, 779 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), dictates the standard of review to be clearly erroneous. Grasle stated that "[a] trial court’s ruling regarding the voluntariness of a confession is presumptively correct and should not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous." Id. at 336 (first citing Escobar v. State, 699 So. 2d 988, 993-94 (Fla. 1997); and then citing Davis v. State, 594 So. 2d 264, 266 (Fla. 1992)). However, Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 605-07 (Fla. 2001), abrogated Escobar and held that appellate review of trial court rulings on a motion to suppress would henceforth follow a two-tiered system of deference to factual findings and independent review of mixed questions of law and fact determining constitutional issues, Thus, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress as a mixed question of fact and law. See id. We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Jackson v. Stats, 18 So. 3d 1016, 1027 (Fla. 2009). "[T]he ultimate ruling must be subjected to de novo review[,] but the court’s factual findings must be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence." C.A.M. v. State, 819 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So. 2d 297, 301 n.7 (Fla. 2001)). In other words, "[t]he determination of what statements were made is a matter of historical fact subject to a presumption of correctness," but "[w]hether the statements constitute coercion … is a matter of law reviewed de novo." State v. Walter, 970 So. 2d 848, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted).

Analysis

The trial court granted the suppression motion based on its belief that the detective’s statements amounted to an implied promise of leniency or coercion, citing to Grasle and Ross v. State, 386 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1980). The trial court stated:

So that tells me everyone there felt as though she was given some type of leniency. She’s not in trouble. "You’re not in trouble" multiple times. That’s where I had the issue and that’s why I have to say that I’m going to have to suppress because she was under the impression that she was helping, that she was, you know, not going to be in any trouble.

….

So I’m basing my decision based on that encounter that it could be perceived, even though there wasn’t any coercion, it was in a different way. It was not [that] it was coerced where she came in with guns blazing. It was "sweetie." She made her feel more comfortable, is what I’m trying to say, enough to talk to her. And that’s where I had a problem.

[5, 6] A police officer can initially approach a suspect to collect information without rendering any admissions involuntary. See Lukehart v. State, 776 So. 2d 906, 917-20 (Fla. 2000). "[I]n the absence of any indicia of...