Juvenile’s Four Interrogations Found to be Voluntarily Made.

State v. Thompson, Minn.S.Ct., 9/16/2010.  A jury convicted Mr. Thompson of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without possibility of release.  He complained on appeal about the introduction of certain statements that he made to the police, and to the introduction of computer generated images of the crime scene.  Mr. Thompson was seventeen at the time of the murders.

Police asked Mr. Thompson to come with them to the police station to be interviewed.  He agreed and at the station he made the first of four statements.  The police did not give Mr. Thompson a Miranda warning before this interrogation.  The officers were not in uniform, were driving an unmarked car, used neither weapons nor force.  The officers placed Mr. Thompson in an unlocked room, told him that he was not under arrest and told him that he was free to go at any time.  The appellate court concluded that these factors established that “a reasonable person in [Mr. Thompson’s] position would not have believed that he or she was in custody to a degree associated with arrest.”  State v. Staats, 658 N.W.2d 207, 211 (Minn. 2003).

Mr. Thompson made admissions during this first interrogation so three hours after this first statement the police arrested him.  Because he was a juvenile the officers also allowed him to telephone his mom, who said that she was on the way to the station.  Officers then gave Mr. Thompson a Miranda, warning, after which they asked Mr. Thompson if he would speak with them without his mom.  He commenced talking to the officers, saying that he was present at the time of the murders but that it had been Mr. Flowers who had done the actual killing.  Employing a “totality of the circumstances” analysis, the appellate court concludes that Mr. Thompson voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily made the second statement.

Next, the officers let Mr. Thompson talk with his mom and brother, during which Mr. Thompson basically repeated what he’d just said to the cops.  The police recorded this conversation, whether surreptiously the court’s not saying.  The appellate court punts this claimed error, saying that since Mr. Thompson didn’t say anything new its admission was harmless.  Justice Page, with Justice Paul Anderson concurring, would have reached this issue and conclude that it was error to have admitted this conversation.

Finally, some five hours after being detained, without having been fed, the officers took a fourth statement.  This time, mom and brother were present.  Mr. Thompson admitting being present at the murders but he denied any culpability.  The appellate court concluded that this was also a voluntary statement.

The state presented some computer generated images of the crime scene, offered, they said, to help the jury understand the actual crime scenes.  The appellate court said that this was okay.