Freeman v. Stat

Facts

D entered the barracks and announced: 'I just shot someone.' Police had, in fact, received a call for a shooting at 1255 Wilson Road and that a female suspect had been involved in the shooting, that she had shot a black male subject, and that she had left the scene in a white Oldsmobile headed towards the Prince Frederick area. Before the officer could even reply, D said she had a gun in her purse and as she is saying that she started to try to open the purse. The officer told her just wait. She was asked to have a seat over by the door that comes into the barrack. The officer then took D's purse and brought her into the 'Trooper's Room. The officer then asked D which hand she used to shoot the victim because he wanted to secure that hand in order to perform a gunshot residue test. D responded that she had used her 'left' hand and that was handcuffed to the bench. The officer then advised her of her 'Miranda rights,' and she indicated that she understood her rights. When asked if she would 'knowingly waive these rights,' D 'didn't say anything.' The gun was retrieved from the purse, and the officer asked D how many shots she had fired. The gun was examined, and no live ammunition was found in the gun. D was asked 'what happened and her reply was 'I don't want to talk about it right now.'' The officer stopped asking questions and got D a cup of water and just kept an eye on her. Another officer began to take charge about an hour later and was told that D did not want to talk. She was asked if she needed anything and was given food and some blood pressure medicine. She was only asked if she was ok or if she needed anything. Food arrived, and D was uncuffed and reread her Miranda rights and then they 'sat down to eat, and ... just talked about her family, what her job was, what her aspirations were....' D did not request a lawyer, nor did she have any questions. An officer presented a waiver form to D and D agreed to waive her rights, initialed each question in the waiver form, and signed it. D then informed the officer that she was diagnosed as 'bipolar.' D then confessed to the shooting of Goss. The officer then asked D if she would provide a written or taped statement. D declined to do so and requested a lawyer. D moved to suppress the confession claiming the police violated her right to remain silent. P responded that silence alone does not amount to the invocation of one's rights under Miranda. The State also claimed that the statement, 'I don't want to talk about it right now,' did not mean 'I don't want to talk to you ever.' P argued that 'in the context of custodial interrogation the police can re-initiate questioning regarding the same subject matter after an invocation of the right to silence if they first promptly stop questioning her after the invocation, which is what happened here.' Characterizing as a 'blurt' D's announcement when she walked into the barrack that she just shot someone, the court denied the motion to suppress that statement. However, the court suppressed D's statement that she used her 'left hand' to shoot. It also held her silence was not an indication that she wanted a lawyer. It was just simply silence.' Her statement that 'I don't want to talk about it right now,' is not a statement saying I want to make no further statements, I want to see my lawyer, I don't want to say anything. But the statements made after she was given her rights and signing a waiver were admissible as they were voluntary. It was after she had completed the statement when she was asked if it could be tape recorded or written that she declined to make any further statement and invoked her right to have an attorney. D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.