 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon v. State9/9/2004
able because of mental illness. The district court ordered Mr. Gordon to undergo a psychological evaluation at the Wyoming State Hospital. Based upon that evaluation, the examiner filed a report in which he concluded that Mr. Gordon was not suffering from mental illness or deficiency as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-304(a) (LexisNexis 2003)*fn1 and was competent to proceed under
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-11-302 (LexisNexis 2003)*fn2.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gordon filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the police interview, claiming they were inadmissible under the United States and Wyoming Constitutions because he was deceived into making statements that were not of his own free and deliberate choice and the statements were involuntary because he was under the influence of a controlled substance. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Detectives Walsh and Waldock testified for the State. Mr. Gordon called Officer Winter, nurse Hilterbrand, substance abuse counselor Hardy-Ekstrom and Mr. Gordon's boss as witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding from the totality of the circumstances that Mr. Gordon's statements were made voluntarily and he was not intoxicated to the point of being substantially impaired.
Mr. Gordon was tried on July 9 through July 11, 2002, and found guilty by a jury on four counts. He filed a motion for new trial based upon improper comments made by the State during closing argument. After a hearing, the district court concluded the State's argument was inappropriate and granted the motion.
On October 11, 2002, the district court held a change of plea hearing at which time, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Mr. Gordon entered a plea of no contest to one count of taking indecent liberties with a minor conditioned upon his appeal to this Court of the order denying his motion to suppress. The State dismissed the remaining counts alleged in the information. Mr. Gordon was sentenced to a term of not less than 42 months nor more than 72 months in the Wyoming State Penitentiary with credit for 276 days previously served.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We apply the following standards when reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence:
A trial court's ruling on a defendant's motion to suppress a statement on the grounds that it was involuntary, is reviewed de novo. In conducting such a review, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. This Court considers all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's determination because the trial court has the opportunity to hear the evidence and to assess the credibility of witnesses. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Wyoming Constitution Article 1, §§ 6 and 11, require that confessions be voluntary. A statement that is obtained by coercion is not trustworthy and may not be used at trial against the person who made it. A defendant is deprived of the right to due process of law if an involuntary statement is admitted at his trial. A statement is considered to be voluntary if the defendant of his own free and deliberate choice, and not because of intimidation, coercion or deception, makes it. The prosecution has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant's statement is voluntary. Edwards v. State, 973 P.2d 41, 48 (Wyo.1999).
Hannon v. State, 2004 WY 8, 12, 84 P.3d 320, 12 (Wyo. 2004).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Gordon relies on the following assertions to support his claim that his statements to law enforcement were involuntary and
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|