On Point: C. Voluntariness

State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2013AP843-CR, District 1, 1/28/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/14, reversed, 2015 WI 6; case activity

Alexander was on probation when he was charged with forgery. He pled to the forgery and a PSI was prepared. (¶2). Attached to the PSI were statements the defendant made to his probation agent about two other forgeries.

State v. Raheem Moore, 2014 WI App 19, petition for review granted, 5/22/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 54; case activity

Moore, a 15-year-old charged with homicide, made incriminating statements to police 11 hours after he was arrested. His most incriminating statement–that he was the shooter and not merely an accomplice–came during a portion of the interrogation that was not recorded as required by § 938.195,

Kansas v. Cheever, USSC No. 12-609, 12/11/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Kansas v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).

The Supreme Court unanimously holds that “where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.”

State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision;  case activity

Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities. 

State v. Douglas H. Stream, Case No. 2011AP2051, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly denied the defendant’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motion, which claimed that his trial  lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to references to the truthfulness of his confession during a Goodchild hearing to determine voluntariness of the confession and that his postconviction lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge his trial lawyer’s effectiveness.

Question presented:

When a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant?

Lower court decision: Kansas v.

State v. Dennis D. Lemoine, 2013 WI 5, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Lemoine’s inculpatory statement to the police was voluntary:

¶3   We hold that the admission of Lemoine’s statements at trial was not error because, under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were voluntary. The well-established test for voluntariness balances the personal characteristics of the defendant against pressures imposed by law enforcement officers to determine if the pressures exceeded the defendant’s ability to resist.

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether Sahs’ statements to his probation agent, along with evidence derived from those statements, were suppressible under the “Evans-Thompson” rule, which holds that a probationer’s statements which are compelled by the terms of probation – provide information to an agent when requested or face revocation – are covered by use- and derivative-immunity.

Sahs,

seventh circuit decision

Habeas Review – Confessions – Voluntariness 

Given the deferential nature of habeas review, the state court reasonably determined that a 16-year-old’s confession after 55 hours of interrogation was voluntary:

Particularly in light of the highly deferential standard due to the state court, we have no reason to doubt that it took into account all of the relevant facts, highlighting only those that seemed especially pertinent to the voluntariness of the confession.

State v. Joseph J. Spaeth, 2012 WI 95, on certification; case activity

Probationer’s statement, compelled by rules of his supervision, is covered by derivative as well as use immunity in a criminal prosecution.

¶3   We hold that the statement that Spaeth made to Oshkosh police was derived from the compelled, incriminating, testimonial statement that he made to his probation agent.  Thus,