State v. Schneider

• Decision Date: 15 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. ED 102582,ED 102582
• Citation: 483 S.W.3d 495
• Parties: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond W. Schneider, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

483 S.W.3d 495

State of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Raymond W. Schneider, Appellant.

No. ED 102582

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR .

FILED: March 15, 2016

Casey A. Taylor, 1000 West Nifong, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.

Chris Koster, Evan J. Buchheim, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

KURT S. ODENWALD

, Judge

Introduction

Appellant Raymond Schneider ("Schneider") appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, convicting him on seven counts of possession of child pornography under Section 573.037.¹ Schneider raises two points on appeal. First, Schneider claims the trial court erred in denying Schneider's motion to suppress his confession because police extracted the confession in a custodial interrogation without advising Schneider of his Miranda²

rights. Second, Schneider claims the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that police officers found thousands of uncharged files containing child pornography in Schneider's various computers and hard drives.

Because Schneider was not in the custody of police officers when he made his confession, advising Schneider of his Miranda

rights was not required and the trial court did not err in denying Schneider's motion to suppress. Because evidence of additional child-pornography files found on Schneider's computers and hard drives was relevant to prove an absence of mistake, the trial court committed no error in admitting this evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

I. Underlying Questioning and Confession

Schneider received a call on his cell phone from Detective Michael Coyne ("Det. Coyne") while he was out shopping. Det. Coyne informed Schneider that police were executing a search warrant at Schneider's home. Det. Coyne told Schneider that he could come home for more information. Det. Coyne testified he did not order Schneider to come home. Schneider finished shopping, retrieved his car, picked up his son, and returned home.

About an hour later, Schneider arrived home with his son in the car. A marked police van and several unmarked cars sat outside Schneider's home. Lieutenant Mateja ("Lt. Mateja") spoke with Schneider in the front yard. Lt. Mateja told Schneider that he was not under arrest and was free to leave, but he could go inside to speak with Det. Coyne if he wanted. Schneider left his son in the car and went inside to speak with Det. Coyne.

Schneider and Det. Coyne sat down at the kitchen table, with Schneider sitting between Det. Coyne and the front door of the home. Lt. Mateja, four other armed officers, and one civilian crime scene technician moved about the home collecting evidence. Lt. Mateja occasionally stopped in the kitchen to participate in the interview. Schneider retained his car keys and cell phone, and was not physically restrained, Det. Coyne placed an audio recorder on the kitchen table and began to interview Schneider. Det. Coyne did not advise Schneider of his Miranda

rights.

The interview lasted approximately one hour and fifteen minutes. Det. Coyne first asked Schneider about his computers. Schneider told Det. Coyne that his computers contained torrent programs, which Schneider used to download files from the internet. Schneider stated that he used the torrent programs to download television shows and movies to watch with his son, and to download adult pornography. Det. Coyne asked if Schneider had ever seen his son watching pornography, and Schneider said he had not. Schneider explained that his son had high-functioning autism

, and that his son was "extremely computer-savvy."

During the interview, Lt. Mateja came into the kitchen and informed Schneider that officers found child pornography on hard drives in Schneider's bedroom. Lt. Mateja stated, "I mean there's a lot [of child pornography], and I can't see how your son could do that without you knowing about it at all ... But the problem is everything's pointing to you at this point." Lt. Mateja told Schneider that police wanted to get these child-pornography files out of circulation. Schneider stated, "I understand that completely. And you're right. It—I'm the one that's downloaded. I'm the one that has seen it. I been getting rid of it." Schneider later said the cable company was stopping his internet access because he had been downloading child pornography, which Schneider called a "Godsend" because he would lose access to child pornography and could move forward with his life.

Later in the interview, Lt. Mateja asked Schneider whether he wanted to make a written statement. Schneider responded, "I understand what you're saying. But I think you also understand that I feel like I'm in a rock—between a rock and a hard place ... And so I don't know what to do. Without some kind of, you know, counsel. I don't know what to do." The questioning continued for another twenty minutes about other topics not related to the written statement. When Det. Coyne asked about Schneider making a written statement again, Schneider stated, "I had [sic ] need to have counsel." At this point, Det. Coyne placed Schneider under arrest, informed Schneider that his son's mother had picked up his son, and read Schneider his Miranda

rights.

II. Pretrial Procedure

The State charged Schneider with seven counts of possession of child pornography. Counts 1–3 alleged possession of still images of child pornography, and Counts 4–7 alleged possession of moving images of child pornography.

Defense counsel filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements Schneider made during his interview with Det. Coyne and Lt. Mateja because the statements were made before Schneider was advised of his Miranda

rights. At the hearing conducted on the motion to suppress, the trial court heard evidence from Lt. Mateja, Det. Coyne, and Schneider. The trial court issued a written order denying Schneider's motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that considering the totality of the circumstances, Schneider was not restrained or under formal arrest at the time of the questioning. Thus, the trial court found Miranda warnings were not necessary before police questioned Schneider.

In a separate pretrial hearing, the State informed the trial court, "in addition to the charged items of child pornography that were found on the defendant's hard drives and on this USB bracelet, that both those sources ... contained additional [child] pornography." The State indicated it was not going to show the uncharged child pornography to the jury, but that a detective was planning to testify to the number of uncharged images and videos containing child pornography that police found in Schneider's home. The State argued this behavior was relevant to show that Schneider did not download the charged images and videos accidentally. The State also maintained that evidence relating to the uncharged images and videos was relevant to provide the jury a clearer picture of Schneider's behavior and his motive, which was "sexual gratification by watching these images of children being sexually abused." Defense counsel argued that evidence of the uncharged images and videos was inadmissible as uncharged bad acts. The trial court overruled Schneider's objections and stated that it would allow evidence of the number of uncharged pieces of child pornography found in Schneider's computers.

Defense counsel filed a written motion in limine to, inter alia, exclude all evidence of uncharged child pornography from being introduced at trial. On the morning of trial, the trial court again heard argument on the uncharged child pornography. The trial court ruled the State could reference the number of uncharged images and videos containing child pornography, but could not show those images and videos to the jury. The trial court denied defense counsel's motion in limine with respect to this argument.

III. Trial and Sentencing

At trial, the State referred to the uncharged images and videos containing child pornography during its opening statement. The State told the jury that investigators found a "massive collection of hard core child pornography" and "massive amounts of child pornography" on Schneider's computers and hard drives. The State specified the number of images and videos found on each computer and hard drive, which numbered in the thousands of individual files.³

The State later attempted to admit the evidence of the uncharged images and videos containing child pornography through the testimony of a forensic computer expert at trial. Before the State could elicit such testimony, defense counsel asked to approach the bench. At sidebar, the following exchange occurred:

[Defense counsel]: I just wanted to clarify at the bench. It's my understanding that the Court's prior ruling the prosecutor could talk about the number of items that were found but that no items other than the ones that were charged could be displayed to the jury or described in detail to the jury?

[The State]: Your Honor, I'm not going to show any of the pornography of the charged pornography. However, I'm going to mention the amount of videos, the amount of still images, just like I did in my opening, and I will ask him to read the file names of certain files that were found on the computer.

[Defense counsel]: Your Honor, I would object to the file names being read for any file. It's not a charged offense.

[Trial court]: Thank you. I'm going to overrule the objection. I'll allow it.

[Defense counsel]: Can I have a continuing objection?

[Trial court]: Yes, it will be a continuing objection.

The witness proceeded to testify, in relevant part, about the uncharged images and videos containing child pornography. Schneider also took the stand to testify in his own defense. Schneider claimed that he never knowingly downloaded child pornography and that anyone could have accessed his computers because there was "open Bluetooth and open Wi–Fi on the system which allowed anybody to...