Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-2117 criminalCOMMONWEALTH go PATRICK HILL · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ·NO. 2000-2117 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE- MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE GUIDO, J., ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of APRIL, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the form of a Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. Edward E. Guido, J. Edmund Zigmund, Esquire For the Commonwealth R. Mark Thomas, Esquire For the Defendant :sld COMMONWEALTH V· PATRICK HILL · 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · · NO. 2000-2117 CRIMINAL IN RE' MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BEFORE GUIDO, J.. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Currently before us is defendant's motion to suppress the statement he gave to the police on the evening of July 14, 2000. Defendant contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights prior to giving the statement. Evidentiary hearings were held, the parties have briefed their respective positions and the matter is now ready for disposition. FINDINGS OF FACT On July 14, 2000, Detective David Fones of the Carlisle Police Department ~ Prior to the interviewed the defendant at the Lower Allen Township Booking Center. commencement of the interview, the detective advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant acknowledged that he understood those rights and agreed to proceed with the interview.2 We found Detective Fones to be credible when he testified regarding the mental state and demeanor of the defendant at the time of the interview. Specifically, the ~ The defendant had been in custody since early that afternoon as a result of an unrelated assault upon a police officer. 2 Commonwealth's Exhibit # 1 is a copy of the "Miranda Warnings" and "Waiver" read to and executed by defendant on July 14, 2000, at 9:22 p.m. 2000-2117 CRIMINAL defendant did not exhibit any indication that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, nor did he exhibit any unusual behavior pointing to a diminished mental capacity. To the contrary, he was alert, responsive, and able to answer the detective's questions rationally.3 DISCUSSION The Commonwealth has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were voluntary and "the waiver of his constitutional rights was knowing and intelligent." Commonwealth v. Edwards, 521 Pa. 134, 149, 555 A.2d 818, 826 (1989). "[T]he determination as to whether a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver was effected is to be made by viewing the totality of the circumstances." Id. Based upon the testimony of Detective Fones, we are satisfied that the Commonwealth has met its burden. The defendant contends that he did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a valid waiver Of his constitutional rights. In support of his position he presented the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. David Petkash. Dr. Petkash testified that the defendant was suffering from the combined effects of a mental disorder and impaired functioning because of drag abuse at the time he gave the statement to Detective Fones. Therefore, Dr. Petkash concluded that the defendant could not properly assess the "pros" and "cons" of waiving his constitutional rights. We d° not accept the conclusion of Dr. Petkash for several reasons. In the first instance, it is contrary to the actual observations of Detective Fones, which we have 3 Adding to the weight of the detective's testimony is the fact that he and the defendant were acquainted with each other. Therefore, the detective had the opportunity to see and hear the defendant on other occasions. 2000-2117 CRIMINAL found to be credible. Additionally, it is based, at least in part, upon the defendant's own statements regarding his symptoms, as well as the quantity and type of drugs he had . ingested on the day of the interview. Finally, having seen and heard the defendant testify as to what occurred at the time the statement was given, we are satisfied that defendant understood the full import of his decision to talk to Detective Fones. He testified that he signed the "Miranda Rights" and "Waiver''4 as a result of a conscious decision to talk to the detective. As the defendant stated, "Otherwise, he'd figure I'm guilty.''5 The defendant also acknowledged that he knew his statements could be used against him. Based upon the above, we find that the defendant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights. Therefore, his request to suppress the statement given to Detective Fones on July 14, 2000, will be denied. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19TM,, day of APRIL, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, defendant's Omnibus Pretrial Motion in the from of a Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED. By the Court, Edmund Zigmund, Esquire For the Commonwealth /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. R. Mark Thomas, Esquire For the Defendant :sld 4 Although he testified that he did not read the form and that Detective Fones did not read it to him, we did not find this testimony to be credible. 5 Since no transcript of the proceeding has been prepared, this is a paraphrase of defendant's testimony taken from the Court's notes.