Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-JV-36-2003IN THE MATTER OF KYLE ANTHONY RICHWINE, : Born October 23, 1988 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-36(A) PROBATION REFERRED JUVENILE IN RE: Hoffer, P.J.: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS FACTS On November 30, 2003, Kyle Richwine, a juvenile, was accused of a sexual assault of a female named J. B. After an officer with the Carlisle Police Department had visited Richwine at his house, Officer Lively of the North Middleton Township Police Department, was called in to the police station on November 30, 2003, at around 8:30 p.m. to interview Richwine. Richwine was accompanied by his stepmother, his father, and his grandfather to the police station that night. After they arrived at the police station and were greeted by Officer Lively, Richwine and his father went into Officer Lively's office,1 while his stepmother and grandmother waited in the lobby. When Richwine and his father came into the office and sat down, Officer Lively told Kyle that he was not under arrest, was free to leave, and did not have to talk to him. The door to Officer Lively's office remained open. Officer Lively then executed a standard interview document, gathering the juvenile's name, date of birth, address, etc. During these interview questions, while Richwine's father was present, Richwine made a ~ Although locked from the outside, the door to the township building and police station is not locked on the inside, thereby allowing anyone to freely exit Officer Lively's office and the township building without first unlocking any door. brief admission. Then, Richwine's father volunteered to leave to allow the juvenile to feel more comfortable in talking to Officer Lively. His father then signed a juvenile interview waiver form, and left the room. The interview proceeded and Richwine made admissions, wrote a statement, and wrote an apology letter to the victim. At 9:35 p.m., the interview concluded. DISCUSSION Defendant argues that his statements during the interview should be suppressed. The Defendant relies on Commonwealth v. Melior2 . However, reliance on this case is misplaced. In Commonwealth v. Melior, the court held that a custodial interrogation of a juvenile without Miranda warnings and without prior opportunity to consult with an adult was reversible error.3 In Melior, the court stated that, "[o]ur inquiry must be directed to whether [the juvenile] was in a situation in which he reasonably believed that his freedom of action or movement had been significantly restricted.'''~ After noting that the juvenile was taken away from a crowd of people by an officer who had taken charge of a crime scene, the court found that he had reason to believe that his freedom of movement and action had been curtailed. The court then held that the appellant's admission was elicited during a custodial interrogation. This custodial interrogation was not Commonwealth v. Melior, 476 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984). 3Id. at 15. Melior, 476 A.2d at 14. 2 proceeded by any Miranda warnings and the juvenile was not given any opportunity to consult with an adult.5 However, this case is distinguishable from the present case. In Melior, the juvenile, because he had reason to believe his freedom of movement and action had been curtailed, was subject to a custodial interrogation. In the present case, based on the totality of the circumstances,6 Richwine was clearly not in custody during his interview with Officer Lively. The juvenile voluntarily came to the police station to see Officer Lively, and was accompanied by not only his father, but also his stepmother and grandmother. He saw and spoke only to Officer Lively, was not under arrest, and was told that he was free to leave. Moreover, Richwine had his father present during most of the interview, which shows that he had the opportunity to consult with his father and that his father could have terminated the interview at any time, but chose not to. Futhermore, in In Re V.H.,7 statements made by a juvenile without Miranda warnings were admissible even though the questions were calculated to elicit incriminating statements without Miranda warnings, and despite the fact the juvenile was the main focus of the investigation. Again, the court relied on the 51d. 6 Whether an interrogation is custodial in nature is determined by the totality of the circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Meyer, 412 A.2d 517, 521 (Pa. 1980). 7 788 A.2d 976 (Pa. Super. 2002). test enumerated in Commonwealth v. Ellis, i.e., the "totality of the circumstances" test, and noted that being the "focus" of an investigation is merely one factor in deciding whether the "condition and/or duration of detention become so coercive to be the functional equivalent of arrest." 8 As stated before, based on the "totality of the circumstances" in the present case, a reasonable person in the situation of Richwine during his interview with Officer Lively would have believed that [s]he was free to leave. As a result, Officer Lively did not need to provide any Miranda warnings to Richwine because he was not under custodial interrogation. Conclusion Viewing the facts of the interview, in toro, the juvenile's statements are not suppressed as the interview was non-custodial in nature. 8 549 A.2d 1323, 1332 (Pa. Super. 1988) appeal denied 562 A.2d 824 (Pa. 1989) 4 IN THE MATTER OF KYLE ANTHONY RICHWINE Born October 23, 1988 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 03-36(A) PROBATION REFERRED JUVENILE IN RE: AND NOW, this DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS ORDER OF COURT , day of ,2004, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Suppress and after a hearing on the issue, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED. By the Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J. District Attorney's Office Public Defender's Office