Police Did Not Obtain Involuntary Confession

State v. Zabawa, Minn.S.Ct., 8/19/10.  Among other charges, a  jury convicted Mr. Zabawa of two counts of first degree premeditated murder, and one count of attempted first degree murder.  The trial court imposed two life terms without possibility of release for the homicides, and a consecutive term of 216 months for the attempt.  Mr. Zabawa argued on appeal that his statements to police were not voluntary so that their admission into evidence deprived him of a fair trial.

Police investigators invited Mr. Zabawa to have a sit down with them; the officers picked him up and brought him to the police station.  Along the way, the officers told him that he was not under arrest, and advised him of his Miranda rights.  The officers also concluded that although by his own admission Mr. Zabawa had drunk four or five beers the previous night that he was not under the influence of alcohol.  The ensuing interrogation took four hours, during which everybody took a total of three smokes and drinks breaks.  Mr. Zabawa gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts during the pertinent time period and eventually admitted that he had stolen a pickup truck from the neighbor of the homicide victims.  He eventually admitted going into the victim’s residence and shooting the victims, but either in self defense or by accident.

The appellate court reviewed the voluntariness of Mr. Zabawa’s statements under a “totality of the circumstances” analysis.  State v. Williams, 535 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1995).  The determination of voluntariness turns of whether a defendant’s will was overborne at the time of the confession, looking at such things as a defendant’s age, maturity, intelligence, education, experience, ability to comprehend, nature of the interview, its length, lack of or adequacy of warnings, meeting a defendant’s physical needs, denying a defendant access to friends.  State v. Ritt, 599 N.W.2d 8802 (Minn. 1999); State v. Pilcher, 472 N.W.2d 327 (Minn. 1991). 

Mr. Zabawa argued that his lack of sleep and intoxication rendered his statements involuntary.  The appellate court says that neither of these factors is necessarily proof of involuntariness, just one of many factors to be examined.  He also argued that the police interview technique of posing as his friend was manipulative and coercive.  The appellate court concludes that this technique did not deprive Mr. Zabawa of his ability to make an independent decision to speak to the officers. 

Mr. Zabawa also complained that the investigators lied to him about the strength of their case against him and that a witness was able to identify him as the intruder.  Again, the appellate court said that such deceit was one of many factors to be considered.  Moreover, the appellate court read the record less severely than did Mr. Zabawa, concluding that the police made predictions about what evidence, including an identification, would be available at trial rather than flat out making up evidence.  Lastly, Mr. Zabawa complained that investigators overbore his will by suggesting that he had a colorable defense to the shootings.  The officers suggested that if Mr. Zabawa needed to enter the residence for either help or to survive he could assert this as a defense.  The appellate court says, however, that police descriptions about the law that do not involve actual or implied promises do not render a confession involuntary.  Again, the court’s view of the facts differed from that of Mr. Zabawa.