Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002498-2009 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CP-21-CR-2498-2009 : V. : CHARGE: 1. AGGRAVATED INDECENT : ASSAULT; 2. AGGRAVATED INDECENT : ASSAULT; 3. UNLAWFUL CONTACT WITH : MINOR; 4. CORRUPTION OF MINORS; : 5. INDECENT ASSAULT; 6. INDECENT : ASSAULT : BRIAN JOSEPH SOZANSKI : OTN: K539773-3 : AFFIANT: PTL. JEFFREY FRANKS IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO P.A. R.A.P. 1925 Ebert, J., February 10, 2011 - Defendant was convicted of all the above-captioned charges in a jury trial held from August 9-12, 2010. Defendant appeals based on the following contention in his 1 Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal: 1. The trial court committed an error of law in denying Defendant/Appellant’s Motion to Suppress Statements of Defendant and in concluding that the oral and written statements made by Defendant during his prison interrogation were voluntary and his waiver of his constitutional rights was valid. Procedural History On June 26, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against Defendant for the above-captioned charges based on statements he made to Officer Jeffrey Franks during an interview at the Cumberland County Prison on June 23, 2009. On December 10, 2009, Defendant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion which included a Motion to Suppress Statements of Defendant and a Motion for Discovery. A Suppression Hearing was held on March 2, 2010, and on March 5, 2010, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress 1 Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, filed Dec. 28, 2010, ¶ 2. 1 was denied. A jury trial was held August 9-12, 2010, and the jury found Defendant guilty of all charges. Defendant filed this timely appeal. Statement of Facts Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I), this Court previously entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in its March 5, 2010 Order of Court denying the Defendant’s 2 Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion. The Court’s Findings of Fact are as follows: 1. Defendant is a graduate of Lower Dauphin High School who testified at the Suppression Hearing and appeared articulate and intelligent. 2. On the date of the interview in question, June 23, 2009, the Defendant was 32 years old. 3. The Defendant had been committed to the Cumberland County Prison on June 16, 2009, and was serving a minimum sentence of 6 months for two driving under the influence convictions. 4. Prior to going to prison, the Defendant had communicated with Officer Jeffrey Franks of the West Shore Regional Police Department and had agreed to voluntarily attend an interview at the West Shore Regional Police Department station. 5. Defendant was summoned to an interview room at the Cumberland County Prison at approximately 2:00 p.m. on June 23, 2009. The interview room was approximately 8 feet by 8 feet square. 6. Present at the interview was the Defendant, Officer Franks, and Children and Youth Intake Worker Thomas McClernon. 2 Order of Court, Mar. 5, 2010. 2 7. Prior to any questioning Officer Franks advised the Defendant of his constitutional rights and Defendant in his own handwriting filled out the rights form and signed it. (Commonwealth Exhibit #1) 8. Defendant initially denied any involvement in the above-captioned criminal charges but eventually changed his statement and provided written admissions and an apology note to the victim. 9. During the interview, the exchange between the Defendant and Officer Franks did become heated and both men raised their voices and used the word “fuck” in their exchanges. 10. While no breaks were taken during the interview, the Defendant never asked Officer Franks for a break. The interview lasted approximately 4 hours and concluded around 6:00 p.m. 11. During the interview, Defendant initially indicated to Officer Franks that he would say anything the police wanted him to say and Officer Franks refused to accept this type of admission. 12. Officer Franks never threatened or touched the Defendant. 13. Near the conclusion of the interview and after the Defendant had given his written admissions and apology note, Officer Franks did indicate to the Defendant that he would tell the District Attorney that the Defendant had cooperated and had come forth with admissions. 14. Officer Franks made no offers of leniency to the Defendant in exchange for his admissions. 3 15. Based on a totality of the circumstances, the Defendant’s statements to Officer Franks were voluntary and made after he had been advised of his constitutional rights and acknowledged that he understood them. Discussion Defendant complains that this Court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress Statements of Defendant and in concluding that Defendant’s statements were voluntary and that his waiver of his constitutional rights was valid. In considering a motion to suppress a confession, a court’s key inquiry is whether the confession was voluntary. Commonwealth v. Nester, 709 A.2d 879, 882 (Pa. 1998). It is clear that in evaluating the voluntary nature of a confession, a court must use a totality of the circumstances test, and not a narrower standard such as one that focuses solely on one or two aspects of the interrogation such as threats or coercion. Id. at 882-883. In Nester, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that The question of voluntariness is not whether the defendant would have confessed without interrogation, but whether the interrogation was so manipulative or coercive that it deprived the defendant of his ability to make a free and unconstrained decision to confess. Miller v. Fenton, 796 F.2d 598, 605 (3d. Cir. 1986)). Commonwealth v. Nester, 709 A.2d at 882. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has stated that A confession obtained during a custodial interrogation is admissible where the accused's right to remain silent and right to counsel have been explained and the accused has knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights. The test for determining the voluntariness of a confession and whether an accused knowingly waived his or her rights looks to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession. Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181, 1189 (Pa. 1996). Commonwealth v. Parker, 847 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa. Super. 2004). 4 Officer Jeffrey Franks advised Defendant of his constitutional rights and read him a form containing his Miranda warnings, and Defendant signed the form indicating that he understood his rights and understood that he was waiving his constitutional rights. After being advised of his rights, Defendant indicated that he did want to talk to Officer Franks. Officer Franks specifically asked Defendant if he wanted an attorney and Defendant indicated that he wanted to talk to Officer Franks without an attorney. This is not surprising. It must be recalled that prior to going to prison for service of his DUI sentences he had communicated with Officer Franks and had agreed to voluntarily attend an interview at the West Shore Regional Police Department station. It is clear that Defendant fully understood his rights and voluntarily waived them before he made his confession to Officer Franks. The United States Supreme Court has stated that In this court also it has been settled that the mere fact that the confession is made to a police officer, while the accused was under arrest in or out of prison, or was drawn out by his questions, does not necessarily render the confession involuntary; but, as one of the circumstances, such imprisonment or interrogation may be taken into account in determining whether or not the statements of the prisoner were voluntary. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 558 (1897). Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 528 (1966). The simple fact that Defendant was in prison while he was being questioned by police does not make his statements involuntary. We still must use a totality of the circumstances test, and in doing so, we determined that Defendant’s waiver was valid and that his statements were voluntary. When assessing voluntariness pursuant to the totality of the circumstances, a court should look at the following factors: the duration and means of the interrogation; the physical and psychological state of the accused; the conditions attendant to the detention; the attitude of the 5 interrogator; and any and all other factors that could drain a person's ability to withstand suggestion and coercion. Commonwealth v. Jones, 683 A.2d 1181, 1189 (Pa. 1996)). Commonwealth v. Nester, 709 A.2d at 882. In considering these factors, we determined that Defendant’s statements were voluntary. The duration of the interrogation was approximately four hours. Defendant kept changing his statements and giving additional details, so the duration was not unreasonable considering that information continued to develop throughout the interview. The interview took place in an adequate size room. Defendant never asked for a break, and the attitude and demeanor of Officer Franks was not inappropriate for the circumstances. Both Defendant and Officer Franks were speaking in raised voices. The fact that Defendant felt comfortable enough to raise his voice and curse when speaking to Officer Franks indicates that he did not feel overly intimidated by Officer Franks. Furthermore, Defendant wrote four separate statements in his own handwriting during the interview, one of which was a personal apology letter to the victim. While Officer Franks did state to Defendant that he would let the District Attorney know that Defendant cooperated, this statement in no way induced Defendant to make either his verbal or written statements. In Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 553 A.2d 409 (Pa. 1989), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted defendant a new trial and found that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendant’s confession was admissible. The Court held that the statement should have been suppressed because it was induced by the interrogating officer’s statement at the beginning of the interview that he would tell the District Attorney that the defendant had cooperated. The facts of the present case are distinguishable because Officer Franks’ statement that he would inform the District 6 Attorney that Defendant had cooperated and made what Officer Franks considered truthful statements came after Defendant had made his inculpatory statements. In Gibbs, the officer made statements about the District Attorney to the defendant when he first started the interview. Id. at 409. Officer Franks could not have induced Defendant to make statements by his reference to the District Attorney because Defendant had already made his confession without inducement. The same is true for the statements made by Cumberland County Children and Youth Intake Worker Thomas McClernon. McClernon’s statement about helping to reunite the Defendant with his family members came at the end of the interview and after the Defendant had written his final apology letter to the victim. In considering all of these circumstances, it is clear that Defendant validly waived his rights and voluntarily made oral and written statements about his involvement with the victim to Officer Franks and Youth Intake Worker Thomas McClernon. Defendant is a high school graduate who understood his constitutional rights at the time of questioning, and knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily waived those rights. There was no coercion, and Defendant willingly talked to Officer Franks and declined to have an attorney present. He voluntarily made verbal and handwritten statements confessing to crimes involving the victim. The interview was not unreasonably or unnecessarily long, and Defendant never indicated that he wanted to take a break or that he wanted to terminate the questioning. Conclusion Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, Defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights before agreeing to answer 7 questions by Officer Franks. His oral and written statements made after his waiver of rights were voluntary, and his confession was properly admitted into evidence. This Court did not err in denying Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, and Defendant’s rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions were not violated. By the Court, __ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Christylee Peck, Esquire Attorney for Commonwealth Frank S. Sluzis, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 8