Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0437 criminalCOMMONWEALTH VS. MICHAEL CINTRON - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · 99-0437 CRIM1NAL IN RE' OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 1999, the omnibus pretrial motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Jonathan Birbeck, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attorney William Braught, Esquire Assistant Public Defender :rlm COMMONWEALTH VS. MICHAEL CINTRON · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ·99-0437 CRIMINAL IN RE-OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION BEFORE HESS, J. OPINION AND ORDER In this case, the defendant Michael Cintron has filed a motion to suppress evidence challenging the admissibility of his confession. The defendant was arrested and taken into custody on charges stemming from the robbery of a convenience store. The defendant, following his arrest, was taken to the district justice's office for his preliminary arraignment. While at the district justice's office, Police Chief Lukens of West Shore Regional Police Department informed the defendant of the nature of the robbery charge against him. According to Chief Lukens, he may have told the defendant that his fingerprints were found at the scene, and also may have relayed to the defendant some additional information suggesting why the police believed that the defendant had committed the crime. Chief Lukens then read the defendant his Miranda warnings. After reading the defendant his Miranda wamings, the chief had the defendant read and fill out a voluntary statement form that also contained the defendant's Miranda rights, as well as · an appropriate waiver. The issue before the court is whether Chief Lukens' informing the defendant of the evidence obtained by the Commonwealth in some way taints the defendant' s voluntary confession. 99-043 7 CRIMINAL A law enforcement officer must administer Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation. Commonwealth v. Mannion, 725 A.2d 196, 200, 199 Pa. Super. 25,~ (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). Inculpatory statements obtained by police interrogation which are not preceded by proper constitutional warnings are subject to suppression. Commonwealth v. Brantner, 486 Pa. 518, 527, 406 A.2d 1011, 1016 (Pa. 1979). "A person is deemed in custodial interrogation if he is placed in a situation in which he reasonable believes that his freedom of action is restricted by the interrogation." Commonwealth v. Zogby, 455 Pa. Super. 621,623,689 A.2d 280, 282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). An individual is considered in custody if, "considering the circumstances, a person in appellee's shoes would have believed his freedom of action was restricted, and therefore, in custodial interrogation at the time the incriminating statements were uttered." _~__oghy., 455 Pa. Super. at 625, 689 A.2d at 282. The defendant Michael Cintron was clearly placed under arrest and taken into custody. Therefore, the issue becomes whether the defendant was subjected to police interrogation which led the defendant to issue an incriminating response prior to his having been advised of his Miranda rights. "Interrogation" is police conduct "calculated to, expected to, or likely to evoke admission." Brantner, 486 Pa. at 527, 406 A.2d at 1011. Here, Chief Lukens informing the defendant of the charges against him coupled with the evidence that the police had tying the defendant to the alleged robbery, could be considered police conduct likely to evoke at least a response by the defendant. However, the defendant made no incriminating admission prior to being read his Miranda rights. Instead, he filled out the voluntary statement and waiver form after Chief Lukens had read him his Miranda rights from a card. Only then did he volunteer a statement. The purpose of Miranda warnings is not to preclude the use of confessions voluntarily made, rather the purpose is to provide certain warnings so that an accused can make a 99-0437 CRIMINAL knowledgeable decision to confess..Commonwealth v. Simala, 434 Pa. 219, 225,252 A.2d 575, 578 (Pa. 1969). The defendant, in support of his motion to suppress, has cited Commonwealth 'v. Henry, 410 Pa. Super. 324, 599 A.2d 1321 (Pa. Super. 1991), a case in which the Superior Court addressed statements made by the appellant to police after the police had told the appellant that they were about to execute a search warrant on the appellant's house. The police, in tum, had made these statements after the appellant had invoked his right to remain silent. Henry is distinguishable from the situation at bar, as the defendant Michael Cintron did not invoke his right to silence. Instead, he had signed a voluntary statement form and expressly agreed to waive his Miranda rights. ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 1999, the omnibus pretrial motion in the nature of a motion to suppress evidence is DENIED. Jonathan B irbeck, Esquire Chief Deputy District Attomey William Braught, Esquire Assistant Public Defender B Y THE COURT, KjnA. Hess, J. 'rlm