Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0000663-2014 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : NO. CP-21-CR-0663-2014 : LEE A. SMITH : AFFIANT: TRP. DONN REID IN RE: MOTION FOR SUPPRESS and PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Before this Court is a Motion to Suppress and a Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Defendant, Lee A. Smith. Following a hearing at which Defendant was represented by Jacob Jividen, Esq., and having considered the evidence and argument presented by DENIESGRANTS both parties, this Court now in part and in part Defendant’s Motion DENIES to Suppressand Defendant’s pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus. In support thereof the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: I. Findings of Fact On June 14, 2013, Pennsylvania State Trooper Ben Wilson interviewed Defendant regarding an alleged assault that occurred at the State Correctional Institution in Camp 1 Hill, PA (“SCI-Camp Hill”). At the time of the interview, Defendant was restrained in a restraint chair in a cell approximately 10 feet by 10 feet in the Restricted Housing Unit of 2 SCI-Camp Hill. Part of the interview conducted by Trooper Wilson was recorded and 3 entered into evidence as Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2. Upon entering the cell where Defendant was being held, Trooper Wilson identified 4 himself as a police officer and explained Defendant’s Miranda rights to him. Defendant 1 Transcript of Proceedings, In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus/Motion for Suppression, September 17, 2004 (Peck, J.) (hereinafter “N.T.”) 9. 2 N.T. at 10, 19. 3 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2 was a CD which included the audio recording of Trooper Wilson’s interview and a video recording of Defendant, Lieutenant McNeal, and a prison nurse. 4 N.T. at 13. 5 told Trooper Wilson several times that he was aware of his rights. Although Trooper Wilson could not remember the exact wording of the warnings given to Defendant, he testified that he advised Defendant of his rights and that Defendant said he understood 6 and was willing to provide a recorded statement. Trooper Wilson further testified that he 7 knew Defendant had to be read his Miranda rights and that he read them to Defendant. Upon additional questioning concerning the exact contents of the warnings provided to Defendant, Trooper Wilson testified that he “went through with \[Defendant\] the same way \[he’s\] done it for years, and \[he\] read that paper \[Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 4, 8 Pennsylvania State Police Rights Warning and Waiver\]” to Defendant. Trooper Wilson also testified that he believed Defendant was advised of his rights and that “\[t\]hat only means one thing to \[him\] . . . . \[t\]hat \[Defendant\] has been advised of his legal rights, his 9 Miranda warnings.” At the conclusion of his testimony, Trooper Wilson acknowledged that the Affidavit of Probable Cause states that Defendant was advised of his “rights” not 10 his “Miranda rights.” However, there is only one set of rights Trooper Wilson reads, the 11 Miranda rights, and “that’s not a choice.” Lieutenant Norman McNeal from SCI-Camp Hill also testified. He testified that on June 14, 2014, an all-call was issued indicating that a staff member was in need of 12 immediate assistance in one of the housing units. By the time Lieutenant McNeal arrived at the housing unit in question, he was directed to take Defendant to the 13 Restrictive Housing Unit. Once there, Lieutenant McNeal read to Defendant the 5 N.T. at 13 6 N.T. at 15, 16. 7 N.T. at 23. 8 N.T. at 23. Trooper Wilson did not have Defendant sign the form because Defendant was in a restraint chair. N.T. at 25. 9 N.T. at 24. 10 N.T. at 25. See Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 6. 11 N.T. at 25. 12 N.T. at 28. 13 N.T. at 29. 2 Restraint Chair Placement Form, explaining why Defendant was being placed in the 14 restraint chair. Lieutenant McNeal also went through a suicide prevention checklist 15 form with Defendant. At no point did Lieutenant McNeal advise Defendant of his Miranda rights. When Lieutenant McNeal completed the checklist, a prison nurse asked 16 Defendant to tell her what happened. Defendant responded by asking her if she wanted 1718 him to explain the whole incident, including how it started. She responded, “Yes.” Defendant proceeded to relate the incident to the nurse in Lieutenant McNeal’s 19 presence. II. Conclusions of Law A. Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Motion to Suppress asks this Court to suppress all statements made by Defendant on June 14, 2013, after he allegedly assaulted Corrections Officer Joshua Mitchell. The statements Defendant seeks to suppress were made to Pennsylvania State Trooper Benjamin Wilson and to Lieutenant McNeal and an unidentified prison nurse. Defendant alleges that those statements were made while he was in custody but without the benefit of Miranda warnings. With respect to the statements made to Lieutenant McNeal and the unidentified prison nurse, this Court agrees with the Defendant and those statements are, accordingly, suppressed. With respect to the statements made to Trooper Wilson, we find that Trooper Wilson adequately informed Defendant of his Miranda rights and that Defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived those rights. Therefore, we deny Defendant’s Motion to Suppress regarding statements made by Defendant to Trooper Wilson. According to our Superior Court, 14 N.T. at 29. 15 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2, 6-17-1 017.MPG, starting at 1:30. 16 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2, 6-17-1 017.MPG, starting at 3:36. Defendant was still restrained in the restraint chair during this exchange. 17 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2, 6-17-1 017.MPG, starting at 3:40. 18 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2, 6-17-1 017.MPG, starting at 3:43. 19 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 2, 6-17-1 017.MPG, starting at 3:44 . 3 Miranda holds that “\[t\]he defendant may waive effectuation” of the rights conveyed in the warnings “provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” The inquiry has two distinct dimensions. First the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that Miranda rights have been waive. Commonwealth v. Cephas, 522 A.2d 63, 65 (Pa. Super. 1987). Moreover, “\[b\]efore an individual may be subjected to custodial interrogation, he or she must make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his or her privilege against self-incrimination and right to counsel after adequate warning as to those rights.” Commonwealth v. Ellis, 700 A.2d 948, 955 (Pa. Super. 1995). The Commonwealth must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Cephas, 522 A.2d at 65. Finally, a defendant’s waiver of his rights need not be explicit. Commonwealth v. Baez, 21 A.3d 1280 (Pa. Super. 2011). A defendant can manifest his intention to waive his rights by acknowledging that he understands his rights and proceeding to answer questions. Id. at 1286. 1) Statements to Trooper Wilson In the present matter, Trooper Wilson entered Defendant’s cell in the RHU, introduced himself, and informed Defendant of his Miranda rights. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and proceeded to speak with Trooper Wilson. Although Trooper Wilson was unable to remember the specific wording he used when informing Defendant of his rights, he testified that he explained Defendant’s rights to him the same way he’s done it for years, reading from the Pennsylvania State Police Rights Warning and Waiver. Additionally, while acknowledging that the Affidavit of Probable Cause in this 4 matter states that Defendant was advised of his “rights,” not his “Miranda rights,” Trooper Wilson testified that the only rights he reads are the Miranda rights. We find Trooper Wilson’s testimony to be credible and, therefore, that Defendant was properly informed of his Miranda rights. Accordingly, as Defendant clearly manifested his intent to waive his rights by acknowledging that he understood them and then answering questions, we find that the Commonwealth proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights after adequately being informed of his rights. Defendant’s motion with respect to statements made to Trooper Wilson is therefore denied. 2) Statements to Prison Nurse A corrections officer may not testify to statements made to a prison health care worker by an inmate where that inmate has not been provided with Miranda warnings. Commonwealth v. May, 461 A.2d 308 (Pa. Super. 1983); see also Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981). In the present matter, a prison nurse, in Lieutenant McNeal’s presence, asked Defendant what happened during the incident for which Defendant is currently charged. Defendant responded by asking if she wanted him to explain everything from the beginning to which she responded, “Yes.” Defendant was not provided with Miranda warnings prior to this questioning, and therefore any statements made in response to the prison nurses questioning shall be suppressed. B. Petition for Habeas Corpus “Where a criminal defendant seeks to challenge the sufficiency of evidence presented at his preliminary hearing, he may do so by filing a writ of habeas corpus with the court of common pleas.” Commonwealth v. Carmody, 799 A.2d 143, 146 (Pa. Super. 2002). “In such instances, the habeas court acts in the capacity of a reviewing court to assess whether a prima facie case was presented at the preliminary hearing, that is, whether sufficient evidence exists to require the defendant to be brought to trial.” Id. at 146-7. 5 20 Having reviewed the transcript from Defendant’s preliminary hearing, we find that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to require Defendant to be brought to trial. In short, Corrections Officer Mitchell testified that he was in uniform when he entered Defendant’s cell to perform an inspection and that Defendant assaulted him, punching him in the face multiple times and causing lacerations above and below Officer 21 Mitchell’s eyes and lips. As such, the Commonwealth presented a prima facie case for the charges at this docket. Defendant is therefore not entitled to relief on his habeas claim. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOWIT IS HEREBY ORDERED , this 24 day of November, 2014, AND DIRECTEDDENIED that the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is with respect to GRANTED statements made to Trooper Ben Wilson and with respect to statements . made during questioning by a prison nurse and in the presence of Lieutenant McNeal DENIED Defendant’s Petition for Habeas Corpus is . BY THE COURT, s/ Christylee L. Peck_____ Christylee L. Peck, J. Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire Senior Assistant District Attorney Jacob M. Jividen, Esquire 3329 Market St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant 20 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 1. 21 Commonwealth’s Exhibit No. 1. 6 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : NO. CP-21-CR-0663-2014 : LEE A. SMITH : AFFIANT: TRP. DONN REID IN RE: MOTION FOR SUPPRESS and PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ORDER OF COURT th AND NOWIT IS HEREBY ORDERED , this 24 day of November, 2014, AND DIRECTEDDENIED that the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is with respect to GRANTED statements made to Trooper Ben Wilson and with respect to statements . made during questioning by a prison nurse and in the presence of Lieutenant McNeal DENIED Defendant’s Petition for Habeas Corpus is . BY THE COURT, ________________________ Christylee L. Peck, J. Daniel J. Sodus, Esquire Senior Assistant District Attorney Jacob M. Jividen, Esquire 3329 Market St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant