State v. Walden

• Decision Date: 03 May 2021
• Docket Number: S21A0210
• Citation: 311 Ga. 389,858 S.E.2d 42
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE v. WALDEN.

311 Ga. 389

858 S.E.2d 42

The STATE

v.WALDEN.

S21A0210

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: May 3, 2021

Layla H. Zon, District Attorney, Jillian R. Hall, Assistant District Attorney; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Anthony S. Carter, for appellee.

Peterson, Justice.

Carly Walden is charged with malice murder and other crimes for the April 28, 2019 shooting death of her mother, Andrea Walker, at Walker's home. On that date, Walden called police and reported a shooting; she claimed an unidentified man was responsible. Walden was transported to the county sheriff's office, where she made statements to an investigator before being provided warnings pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). On Walden's motion, the trial court suppressed those statements, while declining to suppress others that she had made earlier in the day. The State has appealed the trial court's ruling in advance of trial. When — as here — a trial court makes no explicit findings in ruling on a motion that does not require such findings to be made, we presume that the trial court implicitly made all the findings in support of its ruling that the record would allow. But the record in this case does not allow the findings that would be necessary to conclude that Walden was in custody when she made the statements at issue, and so we reverse the trial court's suppression of Walden's statements.

" Miranda warnings must be administered to an accused who is in custody and subject to interrogation or its functional equivalent." State v. Troutman , 300 Ga. 616, 617 (1), 797 S.E.2d 72 (2017). This requirement arises "when a person is (1) formally arrested or (2) restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest." Id.

Whether the circumstances in a particular case amount to custody is assessed objectively. "Thus, the proper inquiry is how a reasonable person in [Walden]’s shoes would have perceived [her] situation." Id. "In determining whether a suspect is in custody, we must consider the totality of the circumstances without regard for the subjective views of the suspect or the interrogating officer." Licata v. State , 305 Ga. 498, 501 (1), 826 S.E.2d 94 (2019). Although there is no one dispositive factor, important considerations include "the location of the questioning, its duration, statements made during the interview, the presence or absence of physical restraints during the questioning, and the release of the interviewee at the end of the questioning." Id. (quoting Howes v. Fields , 565 U.S. 499, 509, 132 S.Ct. 1181, 182 L.Ed.2d 17 (2012) ).

Whether a defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda is a mixed question of fact and law. See Troutman , 300 Ga. at 617, 797 S.E.2d 72. We apply de novo the relevant legal principles to the facts, and we accept the trial court's findings on disputed facts and credibility of witnesses unless clearly erroneous, and construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court. See Davis v. State , 307 Ga. 625, 627 (2) n.4, 837 S.E.2d 817 (2020) ; Troutman , 300 Ga. at 617, 797 S.E.2d 72. Where, as here, the trial court was not required to make explicit factual findings or credibility determinations on the record, and in fact did not do so, we assume that the trial court implicitly resolved all disputes of fact and credibility in favor of its ruling, and we generally accept such implicit factual findings unless clearly erroneous. See Cain v. State , 306 Ga. 434, 438 (2), 831 S.E.2d 788 (2019) (assuming that trial court credited testimony of officers over defendant where trial court ruled that defendant's statement was voluntary without making explicit factual findings). But "when, as here, the controlling facts are not in dispute, because they are discernible from a video, our review is de novo." Licata , 305 Ga. at 500 (1) n.2, 826 S.E.2d 94.

Here, the interactions between Walden and law enforcement officers were documented by a series of video recordings, which showed the following. Deputy Davon Sydnor arrived at the victim's home at about 7:26 on the morning of the shooting, following other officers, in response to a 7:10 a.m. 911 call. A few minutes after Deputy Sydnor's arrival, Walden followed him toward his vehicle, carrying a cell phone. She sat in the back seat of the vehicle as she talked to Deputy Sydnor, while he stood by the open door of the car. Highly agitated, she claimed that some men she had brought home from a party that night had tried to rape her and her mother. Deputy Sydnor asked her a number of questions about the men, their descriptions, their vehicle, and which way they may have escaped, although his interest on that point faded somewhat when she mentioned that female companions of the men had danced on top of the ceiling fan.

Shortly thereafter, Deputy Sydnor received instructions over his radio to "detain" Walden, stop talking to her, and bring her in to the sheriff's office. It does not appear from the video recording that Walden noticed the instruction that she be "detained," however, because she was talking in a focused and intense manner when that message came across the radio and continued her intense talking even after the message had been transmitted. In contrast, a short time later another radio message came through that mentioned taking Walden to an interview room at the sheriff's office so she could compose herself (but made no mention of detaining her). During this message, Walden leaned forward to listen. Deputy Sydnor eventually motioned for Walden to stop talking, visually checked her for weapons, and asked her to fasten her seat belt. He also told her that she was "not in any type of trouble" "right now." Deputy Sydnor advised Walden, "We're going to take a ride to the sheriff's office, OK?" Walden nodded and said, "OK." Deputy Sydnor got into the driver's seat before stating, again, "You and I are going to take a ride to the sheriff's office, OK?" Walden responded, "Yes." They headed to the sheriff's office at around 7:40 a.m.; the drive took less than 12 minutes. Walden was not handcuffed as they proceeded to the sheriff's office, and she retained the cell phone that she had been carrying. Deputy Sydnor asked her no questions about what happened as he drove, although he told her to put her seat belt back on when she removed it and to stop moving around.

Upon arrival at the sheriff's office, Deputy Sydnor helped Walden look for the cell phone, which had briefly gone missing, at times turning his back to her as she stood in the parking lot. At one point, he told her not to touch him and to stop moving around. Walden remained unhandcuffed as she and Deputy Sydnor moved around the sheriff's complex, seeking access to an interview room. She retained the cell phone for some time as they sat in an interview room waiting for an investigator, although Deputy Sydnor told her to slide the phone across the table after she insisted that it was not hers. As they waited, with the door open, Deputy Sydnor did not question Walden about the circumstances surrounding her mother's death. When Walden volunteered information or asked questions, Deputy Sydnor largely did not respond or told her to wait for investigators. Walden did not physically attempt to leave the room while waiting for the investigator, she cannot be heard on the video recordings asking if she could leave, and Deputy Sydnor cannot be heard telling her that she could not leave.

After Walden and Deputy Sydnor waited for about 40 minutes in the interview room, Investigator Clinton French entered the room. Investigator French asked Walden whether the phone on the table was hers, and stepped out to secure it when she claimed that it did not belong to her. Investigator French returned and asked Deputy Sydnor to step out before beginning the interview at around 8:45 a.m. At no time prior to beginning the interview can Investigator French be heard on the video recording of their interaction telling Walden that she could not leave. Investigator French asked some preliminary questions, but did not provide Miranda warnings, before asking Walden to tell him what happened. She then spoke for less than six minutes, during which time she said that she had accidentally shot her mother. Investigator French stopped the interview and stepped out of the room. Walden never asked or attempted to leave the interview room during the time she was speaking with Investigator French.

Deputy Sydnor returned to the interview room a few minutes later to sit with Walden; he did not ask her questions about the shooting and left the door open. During this time, Walden attempted to get up from her chair at several points, and Deputy Sydnor told her not to get up. Left alone for a while, she opened the door and attempted to walk out; Deputy Sydnor asked her what she was doing and she said she was "getting away from you." Deputy Sydnor directed her back in the room and told her to sit down and stay in the room.

Investigator French returned to the interview room more than three hours later. After some preliminary questions apparently designed to evaluate Walden's lucidity, Investigator French read Miranda warnings to her before attempting to interview her a second time. Walden promptly asked for an attorney, and Investigator French ended the interview. About two hours later, at around 3:00 p.m., Walden was placed in handcuffs and escorted out of the interview room.

After being indicted, Walden filed a motion to suppress the statements that she made to officers on the date of her arrest. At the hearing on her motion, Walden's counsel narrowed the suppression motion to the statements Walden gave in the interview room (all of which preceded the Miranda warnings), and agreed that the only issue was whether she was in custody during that interview. Walden...