Facts
The victim, Amanda, was fifteen years old when she met Garrick Lorenzo Walker, who was then twenty-six years old. Amanda met Walker walking to a friend’s house; they introduced themselves and struck up a friendly conversation. Amanda testified that during their first encounter, she told Walker her real age, but he told her that he was only seventeen years old. She testified that they decided to have sex, and the first place they had sex was in the woods. Afterward, they exchanged phone numbers and began a two-month relationship.
At the time, Amanda lived with her grandmother and was going to counseling at Restoration House in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. In May 2022, instead of going home with her grandmother from a counseling session one evening, Amanda ran away from the facility to meet Walker. Amanda testified that she and Walker sometimes stayed at two abandoned houses where she also kept a secret stash of clothes. Her grandmother was not aware of this rendezvous. That night, Walker and Amanda retrieved some of her clothes. Then, Walker’s grandmother picked them up from a park and took them to her apartment in Hattiesburg.
Amanda testified that she and Walker stayed at his grandmother’s small apartment for three or four days, having sex multiple times. Amanda did not inform her grandmother where she was or whom she was with. Amanda admitted she had lied about her age to Walker’s grandmother, telling her she was seventeen years old. While Walker’s grandmother was in the living room, Walker and Amanda stayed in a bedroom that had an air mattress and a television, watching movies and having sex behind a locked door. After several days, Amanda asked Walker’s grandmother to take her home to her mother’s house. When Amanda eventually returned to her grandmother’s house, Amanda told her where she had been and what she had been doing. Amanda’s grandmother then took Amanda to the hospital, precipitating an investigation.
At the hospital, Detective Lashunda Buckhalter of the Hattiesburg Police Department spoke with Amanda and later interviewed her at the police department. Amanda told Detective Buckhalter that she and Walker had sex at his grandmother’s apartment and gave their respective ages of fifteen and twenty-six years old. Due to Amanda’s allegations, Detective Buckhalter charged Walker with statutory rape, and on June 1, 2022, a warrant was issued for his arrest out of Hattiesburg.
On June 4, 2022, Walker was arrested by Petal, Mississippi law enforcement under the Hattiesburg warrant. The Petal police lodged new charges against Walker of misdemeanor resisting arrest, misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and felony escape, all of which occurred while taking Walker into custody. On June 6, 2022, Walker made an initial appearance in the Petal Municipal Court for the felony escape charge, and that day, an order was entered appointing him a public defender for that charge. On the same day, Walker also had an initial appearance in the Hattiesburg Municipal Court for the statutory rape charge. Bail was set at $500,000; however, the record does not indicate Walker had yet been appointed counsel for that charge.
On June 7, 2022, Detective Buckhalter interviewed Walker at the Forrest County jail on his statutory rape charge, where he ultimately confessed to the crime. Walker was without counsel but waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily spoke with Detective Burkhalter about the charge. The eighteen-minute interrogation was video recorded, introduced at trial, and played for the jury. The tone of the interview between Detective Buckhalter and Walter was cordial and familiar. Walker stated his willingness to talk to her; so Detective Buckhalter read Walker his Miranda rights, and he signed a form acknowledging them. Walker then raised concerns to her that he had not been taken to court that day on his Petal misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, and he did not want it “held against” him if he “got out” on the other charges.
Detective Buckhalter responded that they should be able to check on that for him. Walker acknowledged that the day before (June 6), he had gone to court “on the other charge” but stated “that’s why I say I need a public defender.” Walker did not specifically reference the charges for which he was needing counsel, but from the context of the conversation, he was raising concerns about going to court for the Petal misdemeanor charges; he was not requesting counsel for the interview. At the time, Walker was interested in having the Petal misdemeanor charges resolved because he had already made his initial appearances the day before on the two felony charges of statutory rape (in Hattiesburg) and felony escape (in Petal). Detective Buckhalter proceeded to have Walker read out-loud a waiver-of-Miranda-rights form he had signed. The conversation then turned to the Hattiesburg statutory rape charge.
Walker spoke freely and voluntarily with Detective Buckhalter about the statutory rape charge. Initially, he denied having sex with Amanda, claiming all they did was “text.” Walker stated that he had known Amanda “not even a year,” and she had lied about her age, telling him she was eighteen years old. Walker then contended that his brother had sex with Amanda, but he had not. Detective Buckhalter responded that she knew Walker and Amanda had sex not once but multiple times. Next, she said, “If you are honest with me, I can talk to the D.A.—say hey, he was honest about the whole situation.” Detective Buckhalter then asked Walker how many times he had sex with Amanda, and he responded, “one-time, basically . . . when I was at my Grandma’s house.” Walker continued that when they had sex, he thought she was eighteen years old. Walker claimed he quit seeing Amanda upon learning Amanda’s real age from her mother, with whom he had “chilled.”
Detective Buckhalter said she would let the district attorney know that he was honest, but she could not make any promises. Walker asked if he could “get probation,” but Detective Buckhalter responded that she could not make that determination. However, the detective affirmed that Walker would have a public defender. Walker asked the detective again to request probation, but twice more she responded that she could not make any promises. Walker then asked when “Petal” was coming to see him, and Detective Buckhalter responded that she did not know.
On November 28, 2022, Walker was indicted for statutory rape under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97 3-65(1)(a) (Rev. 2020). Before trial, the defense filed a motion in limine to suppress the statement Walker made to Detective Buckhalter, claiming the statement was obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. Walker argued that he invoked his right to counsel during the interview and that the right is not offense specific. Because he had been appointed counsel during his felony escape initial appearance, Walker claimed the appointment carried over to this interrogation on the unrelated statutory rape charge; therefore, his waiver of rights was involuntary.
A hearing was held on the motion in limine, where the trial judge heard the testimony of both Detective Buckhalter and Walker and, importantly, watched the video of the interrogation. Detective Buckhalter testified that when she interviewed Walker, she provided him his Miranda rights and had him read the rights on a form, and then Walker signed a waiver, agreeing to speak to her without an attorney present. As an officer of the Hattiesburg Police Department, Detective Buckhalter testified that she would have no authority to speak with Walker about the Petal charges. She did not recall Walker’s asking for an attorney during the interrogation. Walker, to the contrary, testified that he requested an attorney, but Detective Buckhalter nonetheless continued to question him. He admitted to signing the Miranda waiver form but claimed he did not understand why he did not have counsel.
The trial court denied Walker’s motion in limine to suppress his statement, finding the interview was “a straight-up custodial interrogation,” and Walker voluntarily waived his right to the presence of counsel. During the interview, the trial court noted that Walker seemed more concerned about his Petal charges than the Hattiesburg charge. The trial court found that Walker knew that Officer Buckhalter was a Hattiesburg police officer, and he was being interviewed about the statutory rape charge. Indeed, Officer Buckhalter never asked about the Petal charges. The trial court determined that the video showed Walker was not specifically invoking the right to counsel, . . . but instead was telling Detective Buckhalter he wanted to be appointed a public defender on the Petal charges so those would be resolved and he would be eligible for bond on the statutory rape charge.
In denying his motion to limine, the trial court concluded: Walker was given the Miranda rights warning prior to custodial interrogation and that under the “totality of the circumstances” he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, that he freely and voluntarily made the statements to Detective Buckhalter and that such statements were not the product of promises, threats, or inducements.
The jury found Walker guilty of statutory rape. MCOA affirmed.
Analysis
A. Request for Counsel
Walker argues his statement was improperly obtained after he requested counsel, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Walker claims that he was requesting counsel for the statutory rape charge; thus, the trial court’s finding that his request for counsel was related to the Petal charges was manifest error.
The rules governing the right to counsel are well established. When the accused invokes the right to have counsel present during a custodial interview or after criminal proceedings have begun, interrogation must cease until counsel is present. See SCOTUS Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). The right to have an attorney present must be ‘specifically invoked.’ This may be accomplished in any manner and at any stage of the process. See MCOA Armstrong. A defendant is not required to use specific language such as ‘I want a lawyer’ to invoke the right to counsel. Instead, the right is asserted by some kind of positive statement or other action that informs a reasonable person of the defendant’s desire to deal with the police only through counsel. Once a defendant expresses his unequivocal election of the right, his subsequent agreement to waive his rights is invalid unless he initiated further discussion.
The trial court found that Walker did not specifically invoke the right to counsel but, instead, was asking Officer Buckhalter about obtaining a public defender on the “Petal charges” in order to resolve them so that he would be eligible for bail on the statutory rape charge and possibly be released from jail. After a careful review of the interrogation-interview video, we find no error with the trial court’s findings. At the time of the interview, Walker was most concerned about getting released from the Forrest County jail but did not want his potential release held against him on other charges for which he had not yet appeared in court. He mentioned to Detective Buckhalter concern about going to court on his Petal misdemeanor charges and needing a public defender. Detective Buckhalter did not specifically respond to his remark because the Petal charges were neither a part of her jurisdiction as a Hattiesburg police officer nor the reason for her interview. After he confessed, she assured him he would still have a public defender for the Petal charges.
B. Waiver of Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel
The trial court found Walker was properly given his Miranda warnings prior to the custodial interrogation, and he “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily” waived them. Walker then “freely and voluntarily” gave his statement to Detective Buckhalter. We find no error in this regard.
First, as stated above, Detective Buckhalter was under no obligation to cease questioning because Walker did not invoke his right to counsel during the interview. Second, our review of the interrogation video clearly shows Walker initiated discussion with Detective Buckhalter about the statutory rape charge. The interview began with Detective Buckhalter’s asking Walker, “You wanna talk to me?” and his responding affirmatively.
Detective Buckhalter read Walker his Miranda rights, and he signed the form, indicating he understood them. Then, Walker stated he had a question about going to court that day on the Petal misdemeanor charges, and that is why he needed a public defender. Detective Buckhalter said she would check on the court date. Next, she had Walker read aloud the waiver-of-rights form, and he signed it while the two were laughing and joking. Then the following exchange occurred:
Walker: I’ve just been coolin’ back, layin’ back, waitin’ for HPD [Hattiesburg Police Department].
Detective: You knew it was comin’.
Walker: I ain’t lyin’.
Detective: I know. I want you to be honest with me now . . . . I’m givin’ you the benefit of the doubt to be honest now. Alright. So, I came to talk to you about this (inaudible). Tell me about it. Come on.
Walker: Like I said . . . (Pause) What did they say had happened?
Detective: Y’all had a relationship.
Walker: Who? (Incredulously).
Detective: I know you’ve been over to her house—all that.
Walker then proceeded to freely and voluntarily discuss with Detective Buckhalter the Hattiesburg statutory rape charge without counsel, at first denying the charge but ultimately confessing to the sexual encounter. At no time during the interview did Walker invoke his right to remain silent or request counsel. Walker made an intelligent, knowing, and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and responded to Detective Buckhalter, who was under no obligation to cease questioning. This issue is without merit.
C. Coercion
Walker contends for the first time on appeal that his confession was coerced and thus
involuntary, in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights; thus, it is procedurally barred on appeal.
Even if the argument were preserved for appeal, it is without merit. A defendant’s confession may be allowed into evidence over objection only where the trial judge finds the confession was intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily made, rather than bargained for with promises, threats, or inducements by law enforcement officers. See MSC Johnson.
Walker argues that his confession was coerced because Detective Buckhalter promised Walker she would talk to the district attorney if Walker were “honest.” This comment occurred about half-way through the interview after Walker denied several times that he had had sex with Amanda. Following the comment, Walker confessed that he had sex with Amanda “one time, basically, when I was at my Grandma’s house.” At the end of the interview, Detective Buckhalter said she would talk to the district attorney’s office and let the office know he was honest with her. She also told Walker no less than three times that she could not make any promises when he asked her to request probation.
MSC Layne v. State, 542 So. 2d 237 (Miss. 1989), is instructive. There, MSC found that, although troubling, the defendant’s confession was not coerced when the interrogating officer told the defendant that if he were to be cooperative with the investigation, the district attorney would be informed of this fact. MSC, citing over a dozen cases from other jurisdictions, held that when law enforcement makes such promises to relate the defendant’s cooperation to the district attorney, but the promises are accompanied by no other coercive psychological tactics, they do not constitute an implied promise of leniency or advantage.
Similarly, in MCOA Greer, which cites Layne as analogous, the interrogating officer promised to inform the district attorney that the defendant had cooperated but did not attach any promise of leniency. This Court affirmed that the statement was voluntary.
As in Layne and Greer, here there was no reward attached to Detective Buckhalter’s promise to tell the district attorney of Walker’s truthfulness. While her encouragement to “be honest” did lead Walker to admit he had sex with Amanda, the detective specifically told Walker she could not make any promises of leniency or requesting probation. Procedural bar notwithstanding, the trial court did not err in finding from the totality of the circumstances and beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker’s confession was voluntary and not a product of
promises, threats, or inducements.
Comment
Your ADA is never going to like you obtaining confessions after the subject has appeared at their initial appearance (has to do with lawyer ethics rules…I’m not going to dive into that here). Legally, it can be done as you can see in Section A above. Tread carefully.