State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 21 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | A19-1033 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Judana Catherine Williams, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).
Affirmed
Rice County District Court
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John L. Fossum, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for appellant)
Melvin R. Welch, Welch Law Firm, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this pretrial appeal by the state, appellant challenges the district court's suppression of respondent's statements made to law enforcement. Appellant argues that the district court erred in determining that respondent was in custody when she was interrogated by a law-enforcement officer and in determining that respondent made an equivocal request for counsel that needed to be clarified before continuing the interrogation. Appellant contends that the district court's order will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.
Based upon the circumstances surrounding the interrogation of the respondent, a reasonable person would believe she was in custody associated with a formal arrest such that she should have been provided a Miranda warning prior to her first statement. While interrogating respondent a second time and following the Miranda warning, the detective failed to stop the interrogation to ask narrow clarifying questions after respondent made an equivocal request for counsel. For these reasons, we affirm.
On September 7, 2018, police arrived at the Faribault trailer home of respondent Judana Catherine Williams's boyfriend in response to her multiple 911 calls. A Faribault police officer was the first to respond to the 911 calls and entered the trailer after hearing respondent screaming. The officer recognized respondent's boyfriend, M.B., lying on the floor and covered in blood. Respondent, who was also covered in blood, was kneeling next to M.B. and applying pressure to his wound. The officer asked respondent several times what happened though the respondent did not answer. The officer then noticed and kicked away a large kitchen knife that lay between respondent and M.B. Next, the officer placed handcuffs on respondent while informing her that it was for officer safety. The officer asked respondent if she stabbed M.B., and respondent replied that "he ran up on me, he ran up on me."
Several officers arrived on the scene including Detective Alexander of the Faribault Police Department who eventually interrogated respondent. Detective Alexander testified during the omnibus hearing that, "I approached [respondent] and ensured that she understood that she was not under arrest and asked if she would be willing to go to a different location to speak, which she agreed to do so, and at that point I removed her handcuffs that she was in." Detective Alexander drove himself to the police station, and respondent rode in the back of a separate marked squad car driven by a uniformed police officer.
The first interview took place at approximately 9:43 a.m. Detective Alexander sat across from respondent in one of the police station's interrogation rooms. Detective Alexander began the interview by stating:
And you're still not under arrest. Ok? The reason we came down here to the police station is to talk away from all the commotion and the chaos alright? Um, so in talking with you here alright and at any point you feel like you want to leave you can just tell me and the door is right there. You can open it up and walk out okay? Alright.
During the omnibus hearing, Detective Alexander testified that he knew, before starting the interview, that respondent had stabbed M.B. Detective Alexander did not read respondent a Miranda warning at this time but continued asking respondent open-ended questions. Respondent admitted that she used drugs with M.B. and that they began arguing. Respondent said the following:
He was in my face (sigh). We both was yellin. He told me to get out you stupid b---h. I said ah now you want me to leave Iwas on drugs. (Inaudible) no drugs. (Sighs). He kinda grabbed me. I tried to shake back an he threw me to the closet an you can see the closet is kinda broke the door. It broke. Right there he threw me to the closet. (Crying). (Inaudible) I hate you an he hit me. I fell to the bed, tried to kick em. (Crying). He grabbed my leg an like pulled me off the bed. I tried to get up. He hit me again. I ran to the front, kinda grabbed my pepper spray. He ran up on me again, tried the pepper spray em. He said now you (inaudible) gonna f--k you up. (Crying). He ran towards me an right there on the si [sic] right there on the sink I tried to I grabbed a knife and I tried to run to the back and close the door but he f--king pushed the door open an an he ran up on me I stabbed him . . . .
Detective Alexander then asked clarifying questions to learn how respondent was holding the knife and to determine that the drug they used was cocaine. As Detective Alexander was preparing to leave the room, respondent asked, "I'm under arrest for . . . for self-defense?" Detective Alexander answered, "No, I need ta [sic] need to call and find out how [M.B. is] doing." Detective Alexander left the room around 9:53 a.m.
Detective Alexander returned to the room at approximately 10:01 a.m. This exchange followed:
Detective Alexander continued to ask questions for 25 minutes. During that time, respondent gave more incriminating details about the fight and circumstances surrounding that morning. Detective Alexander left the room for the second time at approximately 10:29 a.m. and returned for a third interview at approximately 10:43 a.m. After the interrogations, officers informed respondent that M.B. died, and the officers brought respondent to the hospital.
Respondent was arrested and charged with second-degree murder and second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon. Respondent filed a motion to suppress the out-of-court statements made by respondent, and the district court issued an order granting respondent's motion in part and denying in part. The district court ruled that the state could not use respondent's statements during the three different interviews with Detective Alexander in its case-in-chief. The district court reasoned that the statements made duringthe first interview were inadmissible because they were made during a custodial interrogation without first providing a Miranda warning. All statements following respondent's equivocal requests for an attorney were suppressed because Detective Alexander did not stop and clarify respondent's statement regarding counsel.
This appeal follows.
The state can appeal a pretrial order pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2. However, the state is not entitled to review as a matter of right. State v. Sexter, 935 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Minn. App. 2019). In order to obtain review, "the state must demonstrate that, unless the district court's allegedly erroneous ruling is reversed, it will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial." Id. (quotation omitted). Critical impact "is intended to be a demanding standard, but with some flexibility." State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677, 683 (Minn. 2009) (quotations omitted). "The state can satisfy the critical-impact standard if the challenged ruling either completely destroys the state's case or significantly reduces the likelihood of a prosecution." Sexter, 935 N.W.2d at 161 (quotations omitted). Appellate courts consider the critical impact of the evidence by examining it in light of all the admissible evidence. Id. In doing this, we weigh its "inherent qualities . . . its relevance and probative force, its chronological proximity to the alleged crime, its effect in filling gaps in the evidence viewed as a whole, its quality as a perspective of events different fromthose otherwise available, its clarity and amount of detail and its origin." Id. (quoting In re Welfare of L.E.P., 594 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 1999)).
Appellant argues that suppressing respondent's statement significantly reduces the likelihood of prosecution because there were no witnesses to the crime and respondent's statements show the required intent for both crimes. Respondent argues that suppressing the statements does not significantly reduce the likelihood of prosecu...
To continue reading
Request your trial