On Point blog, page 4 of 5
State v. Brian I. Harris, 2014AP1767-CR, petition granted 4/6/16
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from petition for review):
Is a defendant deprived of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution by the admission at trial in the state’s case-in chief of his unwarned custodial statements made in response to law enforcement’s asking for a statement?
Temporarily handcuffing defendant during execution of search warrant didn’t amount to “custody” for Miranda purposes
State v. Eriberto Valadez, 2014AP2855-CR, District 1, 9/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under State v. Goetz, 2001 WI App 294, 249 Wis. 2d 380, 638 N.W.2d 386, Valadez wasn’t in custody for Miranda purposes during the execution of a search warrant of his home, so the police questioning of him during that time didn’t have to be preceded by Miranda warnings.
Defendant wasn’t in custody when he was questioned while sitting in DNR warden’s truck
State v. David A. Myhre, 2014AP376-CR, District 4, 10/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Myhre was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he answered questions posed by a DNR warden while sitting in the warden’s truck. Thus, the warden was not required to advise Myhre of his Miranda rights.
Deer hunter who confessed in warden’s car was not “in custody” under Miranda
State v. Jody A. Bolstad, 2014AP915-CR, 10/2/14, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Bolstad shot a deer decoy from the window of his friend’s pick-up truck while a DNR warden was watching. Afterwards, while sitting in a DNR car, he confessed to the warden and signed a written statement. The State charged Bolstad with various game regulation violations, and he moved to suppress his statements because the warden failed to inform him of his Miranda rights. The court of appeals held that Bolstad was not “in custody,” so Miranda did not apply.
Prison visitor subjected to custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda, but physical evidence not suppressed
State v. Marie A. Ezell, 2014 WI App 101; case actvity
Prison guards overheard Ezell tell her incarcerated boyfriend that she would smuggle in drugs for him on her next visit. When she tried to follow through, the guards detained her in a conference room, questioned her, and obtained damning evidence. Due to the lack of Miranda warnings, this custodial interrogation violated the 5th Amendment, but the court nevertheless declined to suppress the physical evidence derived from the Miranda violations.
Police didn’t violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment in taking statement of defendant cited for forfeiture offense
State v. Thaddeus M. Lietz, 2013AP1283-CR, District 3, 5/20/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Leitz’s statements to police were not obtained in violation of either the Fifth or Sixth Amendment, so the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.
Defendant was in custody while being questioned, so statements taken without Miranda warnings must be suppressed
State v. Brandon D Andre Burnside, 2013AP1293-CR, District 1, 4/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Burnside’s position would not have believed that he could stop police questioning and leave. Therefore, the statements he made to the police before they administered Miranda warnings must be suppressed.
Failure to impeach witness with mental health condition. Failure to request WIs. J.I.-Criminal 245 on accomplice testimony. Interrogation — Miranda custody; interrogator’s comments on truthfulness
State v. Deandre J. Bernard, 2012AP750-CR, District 4, 10/17/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Trial counsel’s failure to impeach witness with mental health condition was not prejudicial
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to impeach the credibility of a witness who testified that Bernard told her “I think I killed a boy.” Bernard argued the witness suffers from a mental condition that affects her perceptions and recollections and that trial counsel should have requested access to the witness’s mental health records and used the records to impeach her.
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects argument that Miranda protections apply when custody is “imminent”
State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a lawyer. (¶12). Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the invocation of the right to counsel would mean the police had to cease interrogation unless Lonkoski reinitiated the interview.
Miranda custody; “private safety” exception to Miranda
State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity
Miranda custody
Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney:
¶11 Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly told Uhlenberg that he was not under arrest.