State v. Flowers, Minn.S.Ct., A09-1359, 9/16/2010. A jury convicted 16 year old Mr. Flowers of the first degree premeditated murder of Katricia Daniels and her 10 year old son. Daniels’ cell phone recorded a call to Tiffany Simmons, who told police that she had dropped Mr. Flowers and another guy, Mr. Thompson, off at the Daniels’ residence on the night of the homicides. Ms. Simmons arranged for police officers to meet with Mr. Flowers, among others; Mr. Flowers agreed to go down to the police station to chat. Mr. Flowers admitted being at the Daniels’ residence but said that Ms. Daniels was fine when he left.
Officers left Ms. Simmons and Mr. Flowers to stew in separate interview rooms,during which they learned that Ms. Simmons had admitted to her roommate that she knew about the murders. When the officers went back and asked her about this she admitted picking up Mr. Flowers and his buddy near the Daniels’ residence and that Mr. Flowers’ buddy’s clothes were covered with blood. That was enough for the police to arrest Mr. Flowers and his buddy. The cops also interviewed Mr. Flowers a second time:
During this interview, Flowers stated that he did not kill either Daniels or Shepard, but admitted that Thompson killed Daniels because he wanted her car, or “wanted somethin” and killed Shepard so that there would be no witnesses to his actions. Flowers explained that Thompson first hit Daniels with a golf club, and then stabbed her, and at some point Daniels tried to lock herself in the bathroom. He also explained that Thompson hit Shepard with a TV, knocking him out, and then stabbed him. Flowers said, “I was trying to keep Rob in there, keep Rob in his room. Because Rob was in the room and I (inaudible) stay here because I didn’t want him to see his mom.”
Flowers claimed that he asked Thompson to stop and that he tried to grab Thompson, but Thompson “pushed [him] off.” He also claimed that “I was just (inaudible) to get out of there (inaudible); I didn’t want any part (inaudible).” Flowers admitted that before Shepard was attacked, he took Daniels’s cellular telephone from her bedroom when told to do so by Thompson and later threw the telephone in an alley garbage can. Flowers explained that while standing in the alley after he and Thompson left Daniel’s home, Thompson yelled at him because Flowers “didn’t do anything.”
Mr. Flowers complained on appeal that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of the first police interview. The appellate court said that whether someone is in custody is a mixed question of law and fact. That is, the trial court’s factual determinations are reviewed for clear error but the question whether those facts support the legal conclusion that the person was in custody is reviewed independently. The legal test is:
whether a reasonable person in the individual’s situation would have understood that he was in custody. State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Minn. 1998). If the police have not yet formally arrested the individual, a court must examine all of the surrounding circumstances and evaluate whether a reasonable person in the individual’s position would believe he was restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest.
The appellate court has a list of factors that it considers to decide the custody question: where the interrogation took place;whether the officers told the person that he was a prime suspect, whether officers retrained in person’s freedom, whether the person made an incriminating statement, whether there were multiple officers present, and whether any of the officers used a gun. State v. Staats, 658 N.W.2d 207, 211 (Minn. 2003). Mr. Flowers suggested two additional factors: that the interview was recorded, and that he was not allowed to make telephone calls. The appellate court said that the consider the recording as indicative of being in custody would discourage that recording so it would not add that factor to its list. On the telephone calls, Mr. Flowers never actually requested to make a phone call so the cops didn’t prevent him from phoning home. Ultimately, the court says that it’s a “close call” but it tips to a no custody conclusion.
Mr. Flowers wanted the trial court to instruct the jury on aiding an offender after the fact, but the trial court declined to do so. Mr. Flowers said that the deprived him of the right to present a defense. The first question, however, is whether aiding an offender after the fact is a defense. Mr. Flowers said that it was, citing States v. Brown, 33 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 1994). Brown picked up some duffle bags that were stuffed with money taken in a bank robbery; he said he had nothing to do with the robbery but that he had only been hired to pick up the loot. Mr. Brown, on those facts, convinced the Eighth Circuit, that he could not be an accomplice after the fact if he were guilty of the aided offense; you can’t assist yourself. Because his defense was inconsistent with that of the state, Mr. Brown was entitled to the instruction.
Not so here, or so said the appellate court. The state’s theory was that both Mr. Thompson and Mr. Flowers participated in the murders; that each may have aided the other did not create the “defense” of aiding an offender after the fact. The appellate court leaves to another day/set of facts to decide whether to adopt Brown.
No comments:
Post a Comment