State v. Wright, 94-3004-CR
| Decision Date | 26 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3004-CR,94-3004-CR |
| Citation | 537 N.W.2d 134,196 Wis.2d 149 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jason W. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Frederick P. Wilk, Sheboygan.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, Attorney General, and Stephen W. Kleinmaier, Assistant Attorney General.
Before ANDERSON, P.J., and BROWN and SNYDER, JJ.
Jason W. Wright appeals his first-degree intentional homicide and aggravated battery convictions. We apply federal case law in deciding that a refusal to answer a specific question, as Wright did in this case, does not amount to an assertion of an overall right to remain silent. We also hold that police had probable cause to support Wright's detention at the police station. We further hold that one remedy a judge may employ to enforce a sequestration order is to exclude a witness from testifying; contempt is not the sole remedy allowed. We affirm the trial court.
Wright first submits that statements made by him while at the police station during an investigatory detention exceeded the original purpose of the detention, which was to secure physical evidence from his person. Wright posits that the statements should have been suppressed because they were gained as a result of unreasonable police conduct. But we agree with the trial court that police had probable cause to support Wright's seizure. The trial court's finding is supported by Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 815-16, 105 S.Ct. 1643, 1646-47, 84 L.Ed.2d 705 (1985), which validates evidence gained during detention where police have probable cause to seize the suspect.
The facts showing probable cause are as follows: A neighbor of Wright's, G. Roger Olson, was found murdered in his home on the morning of August 4, 1993. Olson was found lying in a pool of blood and there were no signs of forced entry. A witness reported that, on the day before, he had seen Wright leaving Olson's apartment and saying, "I'll see you later, Roger." The witness also overheard both Wright and Olson say they would meet each other later that night. Another witness, who lived next door to Olson, reported that he heard an argument coming from Olson's apartment at about 4:00 a.m. on August 4.
Based on this information, investigating detectives went to Wright's home, about four residences away from the apartment building in which Olson resided. They arrived at about 9:30 a.m. The detectives immediately spotted blood outside Wright's door. The detectives knocked on the door and were let in by a brother of Wright's. While inside, one detective observed two red splotches of what he believed to be blood on the wall inside the house. The detective also saw what appeared to be blood on the wall at the top of the stairs; the blood was still red, not brown. Another spot of blood was observed at the top of the steps going into the kitchen just off the door.
The detectives had a conversation with all of the people present in the house. They asked if anyone knew Olson. Wright immediately answered that he did not know him and he did not know whom the detective would be talking about. However, Wright's father then stepped forward and said, "[W]e are not going to lie here, we do know Mr. Olson, he comes over to our residence and parks in front of our residence and talks to the boys on occasion." But when asked again if he knew Olson, Wright again denied knowing him.
When the detectives asked Wright where he was the night before, Wright replied that he was at a party. A detective noted that Wright was rubbing the left side of his eye and asked Wright what was wrong. Wright replied that he had been head-butted trying to break up a fight at the party. When a detective noted what appeared to be dried blood on Wright's left hand and on the inner portion of his elbow, Wright replied that it was the rowdiest party he had ever attended with "blood all over." He said that the blood got on him because one of the fighters, Eddie Gamez, was bleeding.
One of the detectives told Wright that he would have to come with them so they could remove blood for a comparison and make a determination where it came from. When one of the detectives told Wright he would need his shoes, Wright's girlfriend brought him a pair which she extended to Wright. Wright denied that they were his shoes. When the girlfriend told Wright that they were the shoes he always wore, he stated that they were his work shoes and that he had not worn them in two weeks. He said he wanted his other shoes, but the girlfriend said that these were the shoes he always wore. Wright said that he wanted a pair of tennis shoes and the girlfriend retrieved those for Wright. One of the detectives examined the shoes the girlfriend had first brought out and they looked wet.
While Wright was detained at the police station, the detectives went to the courthouse to get a search warrant for Wright's home, for an examination of the dried blood on Wright's hand, to examine him for external injuries and fingernail scrapings and to obtain blood samples from the interior of Wright's body. They also contacted Gamez who said that while it was true that he had gotten into a scuffle (with his brother) at a party, he was not aware of any blood at the party, even when Wright tried to break up the scuffle. The detective also noted that Wright had said that it had been at least two days since he had seen Olson.
Based upon this information, the police had probable cause from which they could have arrested Wright for Olson's murder at this point. Olson was found in a pool of blood following an argument at about 4:00 a.m. on August 4. There were no signs of forced entry, thus indicating that Olson knew his attacker. A witness saw Wright leaving Olson's apartment the day before and overheard the two say they would meet each other later that night. When police entered Wright's home, they saw what appeared to be blood. They saw blood on Wright's person. When police asked whether anyone knew Olson, Wright twice denied it. He later admitted knowing Olson but claimed that he had not seen Olson in two days. When the girlfriend brought his shoes, Wright claimed that they were not his shoes and then claimed that they were his work shoes and he had not worn them in two weeks. Inspection revealed that they appeared to be wet. Finally, Gamez denied that blood resulted from the scuffle with his brother.
Wright's knowing the victim is consistent with the lack of forced entry; he lived close to the victim. His denials show a feeling of guilt. There was fresh blood at the murder scene, in Wright's home and on Wright's person. He lied about his shoes. The police had probable cause. As such, any statements made while in custody cannot be suppressed on the basis that they were an unreasonable extension of an "investigatory" detention to obtain blood samples. Besides, we have read the statements and they are totally exculpatory. We see nothing in those statements which prejudiced him in his trial. We reject Wright's first argument.
Wright next complains that police did not scrupulously honor his having invoked his right to remain silent. The facts pertinent to this issue are: An officer was assigned to remain with Wright while the investigating detectives were at the courthouse obtaining the search warrants. This officer testified that Wright said "you tried to get me for speeding tickets one day and then a murder charge the next day." When the officer asked Wright when he last saw Olson, Wright said, "I'm going to do what that guy told me and plead the Fifth on that one." The "guy" referred to by Wright was a state public defender who had talked to Wright earlier and apparently told Wright not to talk to the police. Later, the investigating detective, apparently having returned from the courthouse, gave Wright his Miranda warnings and obtained a statement from him.
Wright maintains that the statement made to the officer, where he "took the Fifth" in response to the officer's question, was an invocation of his right to remain silent and that he should not have been questioned by the investigating detective. Aside from the fact that the statements were exculpatory and did not in any way prejudice Wright at trial, we hold that the trial court's decision not to suppress was correct and sustain it. The trial court ruled that Wright chose to remain silent only in respect to the one question asked by the officer assigned to look after Wright.
The law in the Ninth Federal Circuit is that a defendant may selectively waive his Miranda rights, deciding to "respond to some questions but not others." Bruni v. Lewis, 847 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.) (quoted source omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 403, 102 L.Ed.2d 391 (1988). The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Boughton
...to answer specific questions" rather than assertions of "an overall right to remain silent." Id. (quoting State v. Wright , 196 Wis.2d 149, 537 N.W.2d 134, 157 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S. 707, 726–27, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) )).All told, the Wisconsin ......
-
State v. Rogers
...Centobie v. State, 861 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); State v. Bradshaw, 193 W.Va. 519, 457 S.E.2d 456 (1995); State v. Wright, 196 Wis.2d 149, 537 N.W.2d 134 (Wis.App. 1995). Compare, Cuervo v. State, supra note 12; Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999); People v. Aldridge, 79 Ill.2d......
-
U.S. v. Reynolds
...States v. Eaton, 890 F.2d 511, 513 (1st Cir.1989); Bruni v. Lewis, 847 F.2d 561, 563–64 (9th Cir.1988); State v. Wright, 196 Wis.2d 149, 156–57, 537 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Wis.Ct.App.1995). Additionally, the Supreme Court provides guidance on the issue of selective invocation. Following this line......
-
State v. Cummings
...defendant may selectively waive his Miranda rights, deciding to ‘respond to some questions but not others.’ ” State v. Wright, 196 Wis.2d 149, 156, 537 N.W.2d 134 (Ct.App.1995) (quoting Bruni v. Lewis, 847 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.1988)). Such selective “refusals to answer specific questions,......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...subjects. United States v. Eaton , 890 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1989), Bruni v. Lewis , 847 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1988) and State v. Wright , 537 N.W.2d 134 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1995). §10:62 Sample Cross-Examination This example assumes that your client is under arrest for participating in a shooting an......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...subjects. United States v. Eaton , 890 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1989), Bruni v. Lewis , 847 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1988) and State v. Wright , 537 N.W.2d 134 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1995). §10:62 Sample Cross-Examination This example assumes that your client is under arrest for participating in a shooting an......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...subjects. United States v. Eaton , 890 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1989), Bruni v. Lewis , 847 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1988) and State v. Wright , 537 N.W.2d 134 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1995). §10:62 Sample Cross-Examination This example assumes that your client is under arrest for participating in a shooting an......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...subjects. United States v. Eaton , 890 F.2d 511 (1st Cir. 1989), Bruni v. Lewis , 847 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1988) and State v. Wright , 537 N.W.2d 134 (Wisc. Ct. App. 1995). §10:62 Sample Cross-Examination This example assumes that your client is under arrest for participating in a shooting an......