 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Owens4/10/2002
ppeals in Michigan noted, when a defendant admits to the killing, but attempts to put state of mind at issue, any words or conduct shedding light on that issue are admissible even though they disclose other criminal acts. People v. Cramer, 293 NW2d 744, 749 (MichApp 1980) (holding that under Rule 404(b), an assault a few hours earlier was admissible to prove intent in a subsequent murder).
[ .] In this case, Owens' similar conduct in the assault of Poppenga was factually relevant to refute Owens' assertion that he did not have the state of mind necessary to commit first degree murder. Owens' prior conduct also negated his subsequent claims of accident, mistake, justification, and unintended consequences. There was no abuse of discretion in admitting this evidence.
[ .] 5. Whether Owens' statements made in the interview with Detective Openhowski were involuntary and therefore inadmissible.
[ .] Owens argues that the statements made during the interview with Detective Openhowski should have been suppressed because they were not freely and voluntarily given. Owens claims that his statements were involuntary because he alleges that Openhowski: (1) misled Owens about the interview being recorded; (2) lied to Owens about police possession of evidence linking him to the crime; (3) misled Owens about the penalty and consequences of a murder conviction; (4) encouraged Owens to call his mother and to tell the truth; and (5) told Owens to tell (Openhowski) "everything." Owens argues that, when considered together, these acts improperly coerced him into making incriminating statements.
[ .] Our standard of review regarding the voluntariness of confessions and incriminating statements is well established. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a confession or incriminating statement was freely and voluntarily made. State v. Jenner, 451 NW2d 710, 716 (SD 1990). A trial court finding that a confession or incriminating statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt is binding upon this Court unless we conclude from our review of the record that the finding is clearly erroneous. State v. Faehnrich, 359 NW2d 895, 898 (SD 1984); State v. Headrick, 357 NW2d 268, 270 (SD 1984). We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's finding. State v. Thompson, 1997 SD 15, , 560 NW2d 535, 542.
[ .] Incriminating statements or confessions are involuntary if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the will of the defendant was overborne. State v. Smith, 1999 SD 83, , 599 NW2d 344, 352.
Factors that we will examine include: 1) the defendant's age; 2) the defendant's lack of education or low intelligence; 3) the absence of any advice to the defendant of his constitutional rights; 4) the length of detention; 5) the repeated and prolonged nature of questioning; and 6) the use of physical punishment such as deprivation of food or sleep. A defendant's prior experience with law enforcement officers and the courts is also a factor this Court considers. The question is not whether the interrogators' statements were the cause of the confession but whether those statements were so manipulative or coercive that they deprived [a defendant] of his ability to make an unrestrained, autonomous decision to confess. Id. (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Smith, 1998 SD 6, , 573 NW2d 515, 517).
[ .] Additionally, although police deception or misrepresentation may be another factor for a trial court to consider, the police may use psychological tactics in interrogating a suspect. State v. Frazier, 2001 SD 19, , 622 NW2d 246, 255; State v. Anderson, 2000 SD 45, , 608 NW2d 644, 667. Darby, 1996 SD 127 at , 556 NW2
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|