Because Defendant was Not “In Custody” No Error in Admitting His Statement

State v. Sterling, Minn.St.Ct., 7/24/2013.  The cops, they swear on a whim, invited Mr. Sterling down to the cop shop man cave to chat about a murder they were investigating; being good public servants they even offered him a ride downtown.  Which he accepted.  Once there, the police did not handcuff Mr. Sterling and did not lock him inside the interrogation room when they left him alone to stew.  Whether Mr. Sterling could have actually left the building permanently remained untested, although he was denied a cigarette break and like the cigarette break Mr. Sterling had to ask the cops for anything else that he may have wanted .

Mr. Sterling arrived at the police station at 3:30 in the morning.  Nine and a half hours later the cops arrested Mr. Sterling for the very murder that they were investigating, and only then did they read him the Miranda warning.  He did lawyer up at that point.

Mr. Sterling moved to suppress the statements he made before being given a Miranda warning.  The trial court denied that motion, concluding that a reasonable person would not have believed during that nine and a half hours that he was in police custody to the degree associated with formal arrest.  Justice Page, writing for a six person court, agreed, citing State v. Champion, 533 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1995), and State v. Vue, 797 N.W.2d 5 (Minn. 2011).  Justice Page recites a laundry list of factors that may combine to indicate that an individual is in custody, but not one of those factors is whether a reasonable person would believe that she was not free to leave. 

Everyone took a break of some sort after about seven hours or so.  When things got going again it seemed pretty clear – at least to Justice Page – that the cops were zeroing in on Mr. Sterling.  He was still not under arrest yet and thus did not get a Miranda warning; another two plus hours awaiting that event.  During this period Mr. Sterling made several statements that the state introduced at trial.  Justice Page said that it was a “close call” whether Mr. Sterling was “in custody” after the break but decided it didn’t matter, that any error in admitting the statements Mr. Sterling made in this interim was harmless.

Mr. Sterling also challenged the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to support the conviction.  The court concluded that the state had produced enough evidence to uphold the verdict.