20180179 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) State of North Dakota, ) Supreme Court No.: 20180179 Appellee, ) ) vs. ) ) Samuel Elliot Hansford, District Court No.: 17-2017-CR-1 ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE SOUTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA HONORABLE JAMES D. GION BRIEF OF APPELLEE THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA FROM THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT DATED MAY 4. 2018 OF GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY, DISTRICT COURT BY THE HONORABLE JAMES D. GION, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTY. By: Christina M. Wenko ND State Bar ID No.: 06884 Golden Valley County State’s Attorney c/o Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm 38 Second Avenue East Dickinson, North Dakota 58601 Ph: (701) 456-3210 email: [email protected] Attorney for the Appellee TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. iii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ......................................................................................... ¶1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................................................................... ¶2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ....................................................................................... ¶3 STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................... ¶12 LAW AND ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... ¶13 I. The district court properly denied Hansford’s Motion to Suppress because there was sufficient evidence to support its finding that Hansford’s due process rights were not violated based on the testimony presented. ....................................................................................................... ¶13 A. The district court did not err in admitting Hansford’s statements at trial because his Due Process rights were not violated as his statements were voluntary and not a result of coercion or intimidation. ...................................................................................... ¶14 1. Hanford’s free will was not overpowered by law enforcement as there was no evidence that he was susceptible to manipulation, rather he articulated coherent responses and understood the consequences of his statements. ........................................................ ¶19 2. Hanford’s free will was not overpowered by law enforcement as there was no evidence that the details of the setting in which he confessed overpowered Hansford’s will. .......................................... ¶28 II. The district court properly denied Hansford’s Motion to Suppress because there was sufficient evidence to support its finding that Hansford’s rights under Miranda and the Fifth Amendment were not violated based on the testimony presented..................................................... ¶35 A. The district court did not err in admitting Hansford’s statements at trial because his Miranda and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated when Hansford was not in custody at the time of questioning. ....................................................................................... ¶37 1. Hansford was not in custody because a reasonable person would believe that he was free to leave where the door was closed but unlocked, Hansford was seated closest to the door, and Helmer explained that Hansford was free to leave at any time. ..................................... ¶38 i 2. Because Hansford was not in custody, Helmer was not required to cease questioning upon Hansford invoking his right to an attorney because Hansford’s statements were voluntary. ............................... ¶42 B. Alternatively, the district court did not err in admitting Hansford’s statements because, even if Hansford was in custody or Helmer was otherwise required to cease questioning, Hansford properly waved his Miranda rights. .................................. ¶45 1. Hansford voluntarily waived his Miranda rights for all statements made prior to his request for an attorney when he acknowledged he understood his rights after Helmer reviewed the Miranda rights line by line at the beginning of the interview. .................................. ¶47 2. Hansford voluntarily waived his Miranda rights for all statements made after his request for an attorney because Helmer made statements while Hansford decided if he wanted an attorney and Hansford initiated conversations with Helmer until he decided to sign a voluntary statement form. ................................................... ¶49 III. The district court properly denied Hansford’s Motion to Suppress because Hansford’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated because Hansford was not under arrest, no formal charges had been filed, and there were no restrictions on his liberty at the time his statements were made. .............................................................................................................. ¶55 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ ¶56 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... ¶57 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................ ¶58 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 64 S. Ct. 921, 88 L. Ed. 1192 (1944) .................. ¶16 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) ...................................................................... ¶46 Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S. Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1940) ........................ ¶16 City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 1994) ............................................. ¶12 Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S. Ct. 1860, 6 L. Ed. 1037 (1961) ........ ¶15, 24 Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 77 S. Ct. 281, 1 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1957) .............. ¶16 Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, L. Ed. 2d 405, 121 S. Ct. 2326 (2000) ....... ¶36 Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) ......................................................................... ¶46 Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S. Ct. 281, 1 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1957) ......................... ¶16 Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S. Ct. 1420, 1424 (1969) .......................................... ¶22 Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 68 S. Ct. 302, 92 L. Ed. 224 (1948) ................................ ¶16 Jenner v. Smith, 928 F.2d 329 (8th Cir. 1993) ............................................................... ¶24 Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489 (1964)....................................................... ¶35 Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 150, 11 S. Ct. 486 (1990) ............................ ¶49, 54 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct 1602 (1966) ...... ¶36, 38, 42 Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 1140-41 (1986) ......................... ¶46, 47 North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 374-375 (1979) ................................................ ¶46 Oregon v. Bradshaw, 469 U.S. 1039 (1983) ................................................................... ¶50 Oregon v. Bradshaw¸ 54 Ore. App. 949, 636 P.2d 1011 ................................................ ¶50 Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714, 97 S. Ct. 711 (1977) .......... ¶37, 41 Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S. Ct. 844, 2 L. Ed. 2d 975 (1958) ....................... ¶16 Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S. Ct. 1541, 6 L. Ed. 2d 948 (1961) ............................... ¶16 iii Rothgery v. Gillespie Cty., 554 U.S. 191, 128 S. Ct. 2578, 171 L. Ed. 2d 366 (2008) .. ¶55 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041 (1973) ............... ¶14, 15, 16, 32 Smith v. Bowersox, 311 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2002) ........................................................... ¶24 State v. Brickle-Hicks, 2018 ND 194 ..................................................... ¶17, 19, 29, 36, 46 State v. Goebel, 2007 ND 4, 725 N.W.2d 578......................................... ¶17, 18, 19, 28, 29 State v. Golden, 2009 ND 108, ¶2, 766 N.W.2d 473 ............................................... ¶39, 41 State v. Heitzmann, 2001 ND 136, 632 N.W.2d 1........................................................... ¶22 State v. Helmenstein, 2000 ND 233, 620 N.W.2d 581. .................................................. ¶18 State v. Huether, 2010 ND 233, 790 N.W.2d 901 .......................................................... ¶38 State v. Kirkpatrick, 2012 ND 29, 882 N.W.2d 851 .................................................. ¶19, 29 State v. Pitman, 427 N.W.2d 337 (N.D. 1988) ............................................................... ¶37 State v. Sailer, 500 N.W.2d 866 (N.D. 1993) .................................................................. ¶18 State v. Tallion, 470 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1991) ......................................................... ¶42, 44 State v. Tollefson, 2003 ND 73, 660 N.W.2d 575 (N.D. 1988) ...................................... ¶12 State v. Walden, 336 N.W.2d 629 (N.D. 1983) .............................................................. ¶23 United States v. Harris, 221 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2000). .................................................. ¶42 United States v. Kilgore, 58 F.3d 350 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................... ¶24 United