 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon v. State9/9/2004
e presented supports the district court's denial of the suppression motion.
Looking closely at the testimony of Ms. Hardy-Ekstrom, Mr. Winter and Ms. Hilterbrand, they each testified that even though Mr. Gordon exhibited symptoms consistent with methamphetamine-induced intoxication and admitted methamphetamine use that same day, he appeared to understand the questions asked of him and answered them appropriately. Mr. Winter and Ms. Hilterbrand also testified Mr. Gordon appeared to understand where he was. Under the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude Mr. Gordon's impairment was so great as to deprive him of the capacity to understand the meaning of his statements. Even though the evidence suggests he was intoxicated, it also suggests he understood what he was doing, carried on a conversation and responded to questions. The totality of the circumstances suggest his statements were the product of rational intellect and free will. We hold that the trial court did not error in declining to admit Mr. Gordon's statements on the grounds that they were involuntary due to intoxication.
Denial of Opportunity to Confer with Counsel
Mr. Gordon asserts that once he stated that he "might need to talk to an attorney," the detectives were required to cease further questioning. Because they did not, he contends, the statements he made thereafter were inadmissible. The State responds that because Mr. Gordon initiated further communication with the officers after stating that he might want to talk to any attorney, the statements that followed were properly admitted.*fn3
The law in Wyoming is that once an accused invokes his right to counsel, he may not be questioned further until counsel is provided to him, unless the accused initiates further communication with authorities. Houghton v. State, 6 P.3d 643, 647 (Wyo. 2000). The test is whether the accused"himself initiates dialogue with the authorities." Id. at 648.
We applied this standard in Houghton to conclude that the defendant's right to counsel was not violated where she "evinced a willingness and a desire for" discussion with authorities after invoking her right to counsel. Id.
Here, after Mr. Gordon stated that he "might need to talk to an attorney," detectives ceased questioning him and prepared to leave the interview room. Mr. Gordon initiated further communication with them by asking whether they would have let him go home if he had answered their questions. The officers answered his question and left the room. They went back into the room only after Mr. Gordon began pounding on the door and asking them to come back and talk to him. At that point, they attempted to verify Mr. Gordon's desire to talk with them despite his statement that he might need an attorney by again advising him of his rights under Miranda. After acknowledging that he understood his rights, Mr. Gordon agreed to further communication with them. Under these circumstances, we hold that the district court properly admitted his statements.
Overt or Implied Threat or Promise by Law Enforcement Officials
Mr. Gordon also claims his suppression motion should have been granted because law enforcement acted coercively in telling him he probably would have been allowed to go home if he had answered their questions. In Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1195-96 (Wyo. 1997), we delineated several factors the trial court might consider in applying the totality of the circumstances, including whether any overt or implied threat or promise was directed to the defendant. In Simmers, the defendant argued his impaired mental ability when combined with the detective's non-adversarial, friendly interrogation style and promis
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.
|
|