 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hutchison v. State7/25/2001
Grant T. Hutchison appeals his convictions for felony driving while intoxicated and driving with a revoked license. He contends that certain statements he made to the police should be suppressed because he was not advised of his Miranda rights. Hutchison also appeals the provisions of his sentence that require him to pay restitution for damage sustained by a vehicle he was accused of stealing. For the reasons explained here, we conclude that Hutchison was not entitled to advisement of his Miranda rights before he made the challenged statements, and we further conclude that the evidence supports the sentencing judge's decision to make Hutchison pay restitution for the damage to the vehicle.
Underlying Facts
Around midnight on August 25, 1998, the North Slope Borough Police received a report that a vehicle had been stolen. Approximately twenty minutes later, Officer Parish Moses located the vehicle; it was parked in the road, partly in an intersection and partly in a ditch. As Moses pulled up in his patrol car, he saw Grant Hutchison and a second man in the intersection, apparently walking away from the vehicle. Both Hutchison and his companion appeared to be highly intoxicated.
A backup officer, Larry Hinken, soon arrived. Hinken and Moses decided to question Hutchison and the second man to see if either of them was connected to the vehicle parked in the intersection.
Hinken spoke to Hutchison. When Hinken asked Hutchison what was going on, Hutchison did not respond. Because Hutchison was visibly drunk, and because the weather was forty degrees and drizzling, Hinken suggested that Hutchison sit inside the patrol car, out of the weather. Hutchison voluntarily walked to the patrol vehicle and took a seat in the back of the car. Hinken stood next to Hutchison, outside the patrol car, with the car door open.
Hinken testified that, at this point, he still did not know if Hutchison, or the second man, or both of them, were connected to the vehicle parked in the roadway. Hinken asked Hutchison if he had been drinking. Hutchison did not answer this question, but instead responded that he was on his way home. Hinken then asked Hutchison if he had been driving the vehicle. Hutchison admitted that he had.
After hearing these responses, Hinken closed the door to the patrol car (shutting Hutchison inside) and walked over to inspect the vehicle in the intersection. When Hinken returned to the patrol car, he resumed his questioning of Hutchison, but Hutchison's answers to this second set of questions were ultimately suppressed because Hinken did not advise Hutchison of his Miranda rights.
Was Hinken Obliged to Advise Hutchison of His Miranda Rights Before Asking Him the First Few Questions?
Hutchison argues that he was in custody for Miranda purposes from the moment that Hinken began his questioning in the patrol car. Thus, Hutchison contends, the superior court should have suppressed his admission that he had been driving the vehicle.
Superior Court Judge Michael I. Jeffery held an evidentiary hearing on Hutchison's claim. (We have already summarized the evidence presented at that hearing in the light most favorable to Judge Jeffery's ruling.) After hearing this evidence, Judge Jeffery concluded that Hutchison had not been in custody during the initial stage of the questioning. Judge Jeffery ruled that, once Hinken closed the car door and shut Hutchison inside, a reasonable person in Hutchison's position would have believed that they were no longer free to break off the questioning and leave. But until that point, Judge Jeffery concluded, Hutchison was not in custody for Miranda purposes.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|