State v. Strayhand
| Citation | 911 P.2d 577,184 Ariz. 571 |
| Decision Date | 07 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,Nos. 1,s. 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Lester Earl STRAYHAND, Appellant. 92-1386, 1 92-1391. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
The Defendant, Lester Earl Strayhand, was convicted, following a trial by jury, of three counts of armed robbery and two counts of theft. Strayhand's confessions as to one of the thefts and all the robberies should not have been admitted in evidence. The State had the burden of showing that the confessions were voluntary and the totality of circumstances compels the conclusion that the police obtained those confessions by overbearing the Defendant's will. In finding otherwise, the trial court committed clear and manifest error, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. 1 We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Sometime after one o'clock in the morning of May 23, 1991, two Jack-in-the-Box restaurants in Mesa were robbed within the span of one hour. Employees of the restaurants testified that the robber was a young African-American male with a bandage on his left cheek. In each instance, the robber placed an order at the drive-through window, paid for the order, and then pulled a gun and demanded money.
About a month later, on June 20, 1991, at around two o'clock in the morning, a Whataburger in Mesa was robbed in a similar fashion. The Whataburger employee who was working at the drive-through window testified that a young, African-American male, driving a gray Chevrolet Blazer, placed an order, paid at the window, and then drove away. The man was wearing a navy leather jacket and baseball cap and had a white bandage on his left cheek. Five minutes later the same man returned to the drive-through and placed a new order. When the employee opened the cash register, the man robbed her at gunpoint and drove away.
A short while later, a Mesa police officer saw a vehicle matching the description of the robbery vehicle in a drive-through lane at a nearby Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. He saw the driver run from the vehicle. The police recovered a plastic bag, a loaded revolver, and several fingerprints from the vehicle. A fingerprint from the inside of the driver's door was ultimately determined to match the Defendant's left thumb print, but no other matching prints were found on the gun, the plastic bag, or the broken steering column. The Whataburger employee who had been robbed that morning later identified the Blazer as the vehicle used in that robbery. It had been stolen in the area a few hours earlier.
Nearby, and shortly after the officer saw the suspect flee on foot from the Jack-in-the-Box, another Mesa police officer saw the Defendant, who matched the description of the robbery suspect, driving a tan station wagon. The officer stopped the station wagon, established that it had been stolen, and arrested the Defendant. The Defendant was wearing a white shirt and beige shorts and had no bandage on his face. The police drove the Whataburger employee to the site of the arrest to identify the Defendant, but she stated that he was not the man who had robbed her earlier that morning.
The Defendant was taken to the police station for questioning. He arrived there about 3:30 a.m. and was left in a holding cell for over nine hours. The Defendant testified that he was unable to sleep during that period because the holding cell was too cold. He further testified that, though he had been offered food by the jailer, he had had nothing to eat since the previous morning. At around 12:45 p.m. on the day the Defendant was arrested, Mesa Police Detectives Ron Schoch and Curtis Adams took the Defendant to an interrogation room, gave him a Miranda warning, and questioned him for over two hours.
Ultimately, the Defendant was questioned on two separate occasions. We will discuss the details of the interrogations in the sequence in which they occurred. Most of the first interrogation was tape recorded, but the recorder was turned off during a break about half way through the interrogation. Detective Adams continued to discuss the case with the Defendant during that break. The record contains a complete transcript of only that part of the first interrogation which followed the break. 2
During the second part of the first interrogation, the Defendant was given something to eat and drink. The detectives questioned him about his friends and acquaintances and then turned their attention to the robberies. They lied to the Defendant and told him that several people, including the Whataburger employee, had identified him as the robber. The Defendant denied committing the robberies, and the officers continued their questioning concerning his friends and his activities over the past several days.
The detectives suggested on several occasions that the Defendant's lack of cooperation might make things more difficult for him. Early in the interrogation Detective Adams stated:
I don't want to sit here all day and have to nail you down on every little thing. Don't make me do that. I will do that if I have to do it that way. Then I will ask for a lot of jail time because you're not going to cooperate with me and I'm not going to help you.
Later in the interview Detective Adams stated:
I think you're sitting there lying to me and you're going to make me prove everything the hard way and I wish I didn't have to but if you're going to make me, then I will. Okay? Priors, on probation, we can make it real uncomfortable. No cooperation.
To this, the Defendant responded:
Fuck everything man. Just do what you guys want to do. Send me to jail or whatever, okay. Just forget it. That's how I look at it. Just fuck it. I ain't gonna be here for too long.
A brief discussion ensued as to whether the Defendant was threatening suicide, and then the detectives returned to their questioning. The Defendant stated several times that he had told the detectives all he knew, but the detectives continued to accuse him of lying. The Defendant at one point stated, The detectives continued their questioning and the following dialogue took place Detective Schoch ("S"): Well this is your opportunity to get it all straight okay?
The Defendant ("D"): Well I have been straight.
D. It's not my company. I can't do this shit.
The interrogation proceeded with a discussion of the Defendant's failure to complete high school and failure to obtain suitable employment. The Defendant began to break down and cry and continued to make statements like: "No I don't want to hear nothing else man"; ; and The detectives then turned to questioning the Defendant about some prior legal problems he had encountered.
Detective Adams ("A"): Okay so you figured this whole thing is fucked and that's why you don't want to tell us about the robbery or anything else, right?
Detective Adams went on to tell the Defendant that other people who had been in trouble had been able to straighten out their lives and that if he confessed the detective would tell the county attorney that he had been cooperative. The detectives also told the Defendant that it would look better if his parole officer could write in the report that the Defendant had cooperated.
The interrogation then continued with a discussion of the events of the previous day. The detectives began telling the Defendant that all the facts seemed to point to him and that his lying was "just digging a deeper hole," and would get his "butt buried so far," that he wasn't "even gonna see daylight." Detective Schoch also told the Defendant that he was going to hang him in court and that the Defendant was "going to do some big time," unless he cooperated. He stated that his cooperation "matters on the amount of time you get," and that "we can hopefully limit some of that time." The detectives then told the Defendant that they had the lab report and that it revealed that his fingerprints were on the Blazer used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reaves
...which the jury could rationally sustain the defense.’ " Almeida , 238 Ariz. 77, ¶ 9, 356 P.3d 822 (quoting State v. Strayhand , 184 Ariz. 571, 588, 911 P.2d 577, 582 (App. 1995) ). Thus, although we typically review the denial of a jury instruction for abuse of discretion, we "independently......
-
State v. Cota, CR–09–0218–AP.
...59, 61–62 ¶ 5, 202 P.3d 524, 526–27 (App.2008) (“I ain't got nothin' to say” invoked Fifth Amendment rights.); State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 585, 911 P.2d 577, 591 (App.1995) (“ ‘Well I don't want [to] answer anymore,’ could not have been clearer” invocation of Fifth Amendment rights.)......
-
People v. Martinez
......Dr. Wu believed defendant would be able to control his behavior if he were in a highly structured setting like a state prison. . 47 Cal.4th 936 . (c) Adjustment potential . James Esten, a retired correctional consultant, testified ...( State v. Strayhand (1995) 184 Ariz. 571 [911 P.2d 577, 592]; Freeman v. State (2004) 158 Md.App. 402 [857 A.2d 557, 570] [refusing to apply Davis to an initial ......
-
State v. Eggers
...Thompson v. Steptoe, 179 W.Va. 199, 366 S.E.2d 647, 649 (W.Va.1988); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 596, 911 P.2d 577, 602 (App.1995) (McGregor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In so doing, however, we do not purport to comprehensively address what other circums......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...counsel/assertion of rights 11Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, Tagalav. State, 812 P.2d 604 (Alaska App. 1991); State v.Strayhand, 911 P.2d 577 (Ariz.114 S. Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) 1995); Crawford v.State, 580 A.2d 571 (Del. 1990); State v. Hoey, 77 Hawaii 17, 881P.2d504 (1994......