Facts
On October 31, 2020, the Jackson Police Department dispatched officers to 636 Lowder Drive. When Officer Reginald Craft arrived, the medical first responders were outside the home treating seventeen-year-old L.T., who was severely injured and unresponsive. Craft went inside, where he found Danny Dabbs and LaTiffany Chambers. Upon entering the house, Craft testified that he smelled cleaning agents. When Craft asked about the smell, Dabbs said that he cleaned the area where L.T. was found. Chambers corroborated this statement by Dabbs. When Craft inquired about L.T.’s injuries, Dabbs said that he was heading to the kitchen from his bedroom and found L.T. on the floor in the hallway.
L.T. was transported to the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC), where she died. According to Dr. Mark LeVaughn, L.T. died from multiple blunt trauma injuries due to a beating. L.T.’s injuries included numerous impact injuries to her head, multiple blunt injuries to her face, bruising all over her body, scars, fractured ribs, a lung contusion, pelvic hemorrhaging, and a large ring-shaped patterned bruise on her rear. L.T.’s right arm had defense patterns, and the soft tissue in her lower back contained a large amount of blood.
Sergeant Christian Vance testified that he went to the hospital and saw L.T.’s injuries. He then went to Chambers’s home and arrested Chambers and Dabbs. While arresting them, Vance noticed that the other two children were in distress. He saw A.C., who was twelve, wincing in pain, and another officer observed bruises on D.C., who was fourteen. The two minor children were transported to UMMC for further evaluation.
Homicide Detective Kevin McNeal interrogated Dabbs and Chambers separately at the Jackson Police Department on the night of L.T.’s death. Dabbs stated that L.T. had lost bowel function, which was the reason that he and Chambers were cleaning when Craft arrived. However, Dabbs later confessed to police that he would often beat the children with a belt, leaving marks. Dabbs also admitted that Chambers knew that he would snap and challenged her to try and stop him. Dabbs told police that he did not know his own strength, which is why he kept hurting them. Dabbs also told McNeal that Chambers had mental problems, but she was not directly involved in the abuse. Dabbs explained that he would turn on the radio and beat the children when Chambers would go outside. Dabbs admitted that a similar sequence of events happened the night L.T. died. He “snapped,” and although Chambers was outside, when she came back in the house, Dabbs told her that he hit L.T. and he did not know if she was alright. Dabbs continued in his statement that Chambers never touched the children, but she also would not tell authorities that Dabbs was the one who hurt them.
McNeal also interrogated Chambers. Detective Martha Dees was also present. McNeal read Chambers her Miranda rights. When McNeal asked Chambers if she wanted to waive her Miranda rights, Chambers initially began rambling about what happened at the house, but McNeal immediately stopped her and prompted her to answer. Initially, Chambers said “no,” explaining that “I’m kinda mental so you gotta . . . I’m kinda mental in the head.” McNeal clarified that he wanted to ask her some questions and talk about what happened. Chambers again began talking, and McNeal stopped her, stating that he needed her permission to ask questions about what happened, asking her to answer yes or no. Chambers answered “yes.” McNeal continued the interrogation, including reading over her Miranda waiver form. After explaining the form to Chambers, McNeal asked if she understood it and asked for her signature. Chambers looked over the form for several seconds but did not sign it. Instead, she asked what would happen if she did not sign it.
McNeal responded: Even if we don’t talk to you tonight, we are going to have to talk to you eventually. We are going to have to talk to you . . . in this setting because . . . [there’s] some questions that we need answering, and [there’s] some information that we need, and we think that you would be the best one to help us out with that. But . . . if you don’t feel comfortable talking . . . .
Chambers interrupted McNeal and reiterated that she had a mental disorder and that she was hungry and thirsty. McNeal asked if she wanted to wait and talk, and Chambers answered “yes.” McNeal then told Chambers that he was not going to ask her any more questions, and he said he was going to “cut” the interview so Chambers could “get some nourishment.” Chambers was aware that the interview had ended and asked McNeal if he had her phone number so he could call her. However, as shown in the interrogation video, Chambers suddenly initiated a conversation with McNeal without being prompted by any questioning. Chambers told McNeal that L.T. slipped and fell in the hallway. Chambers repeatedly denied that Dabbs ever laid a hand on her children. Chambers also said that A.C. and D.C. sustained their injuries during fights with other children. Chambers was then arrested and charged with capital murder and felony child abuse.
Chambers was evaluated by Dr. R.M. Storer, who opined that despite Chambers’s lack of cooperation, depressive symptoms, and likely intellectual deficits, Chambers had a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings pending against her, and she does have the ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
At the motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that McNeal’s misrepresentation to Chambers that she would “eventually” have to talk to law enforcement was improper. However, the trial court found that Chambers’s statements to McNeal were admissible because Chambers ultimately initiated another conversation and because those statements were not a result of direct questioning from law enforcement. The court explained:
Detective McNeal stated, “We are going to discontinue the interrogation.” It even went so far as Ms. Chambers saying you have my number to contact me at. Now that should have been the end of it. Had Detective McNeal then began initiating additional questions, then I would say that the defendant has a viable argument from that point. But Detective McNeal didn’t ask any additional questions after he said we are going to cease the interrogation. The defendant started talking without any coaxing from Detective McNeal. She initiated whatever was said at that point. So as it relates to what was said after he said . . . that the interview was going to . . .cease at that point and the defendant started talking without any coaxing from Detective McNeal. That’s coming in until the end of that interview.
The jury found Chambers guilty of the death of her daughter L.T. and on two counts of felonious child abuse of her children D.C. and A.C., while acting in concert with and/or aiding and abetting her fiancé, Danny Dabbs, and the circuit court sentenced her to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for the murder of L.T. and to serve ten years for each count of felonious child abuse of the other two children. The court ordered the two sentences for felony child abuse to run consecutively to each other.
On appeal, she argues her motion to suppress should have been granted. MCOA affirmed.
Analysis
A. Voluntary Waiver
Waiver is considered voluntary if it is the result of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion or deception. A statement is free and voluntary if the suspect in custody initiates a conversation with law enforcement. See MCOA Dean. On appeal, Chambers focuses her entire argument on the details of her interrogation and McNeal’s assertion that she would “eventually” have to speak to law enforcement, critiquing McNeal’s “cavalier” approach to her Miranda rights. Chambers contends that her statements to McNeal were not voluntary because McNeal created a “coercive environment” that induced her to speak. However, Chambers’s argument fails to address the fact that McNeal ended the interview before she made any statement to law enforcement.
The trial court specifically found: The defendant started talking without any coaxing from Detective McNeal. She initiated whatever was said at that point. So as it relates to what was said after he said . . . that the interview was going to . . . cease at that point and the defendant started talking without any coaxing from Detective McNeal. That’s coming in until the end of that interview.
In MCOA Alexander, Alexander was arrested for possession of marijuana and read his Miranda rights while he was in custody. During booking, Alexander made incriminating statements about his involvement. The trial court denied Alexander’s motion to suppress the statements, and he was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. This Court affirmed the denial of Alexander’s motion to suppress because the officers testified and the defendant agreed that Miranda warnings were given to Alexander when he was arrested. After Alexander was in custody and taken to the station house for booking, he made incriminating statements regarding his drug supplier which were unsolicited and voluntary. Alexander was not being subjected to “interrogation” even though he was “in custody.”
Here, McNeal repeatedly stopped Chambers from discussing the events leading up to L.T.’s death until she was given her Miranda rights. His questions before Chambers spoke spontaneously only concerned whether Chambers consented to the conversation by waiving her Miranda rights. McNeal did not discuss what happened at Chambers’s house that night until Chambers initiated it.
Additionally, McNeal read Chambers her Miranda rights, which she acknowledged by initialing a section indicating that she understood them, but she did not sign the waiver portion of that one-page document. McNeal then asked Chambers multiple times if she would like to talk about the events that led to L.T.’s death. After stating multiple times that she was tired, hungry, and could not focus, Chambers stated that she wanted to talk later. McNeal understood that Chambers did not want to talk at the moment, and he proceeded to collect her contact information. The video recording reveals that McNeal ended the interview. Chambers understood that she was about to leave, as she nodded her head affirmatively several times. She also verbally confirmed that McNeal’s plan was to call her later. At that moment, Chambers was no longer subjected to interrogation because McNeal had ended the interview. Then Chambers started speaking without prompting from McNeal.
As in Alexander, there is a clear indication that Chambers understood her rights and that her statement, like Alexander’s, was spontaneous and voluntary.
B. Knowing and Intelligent Waiver
A waiver is knowing and intelligent if it is made with a full awareness both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. See MSC Brown. Chambers contends that because of her mental incapacity, she could not have knowingly and intelligently waived her Fifth Amendment rights. However, the mental abilities of an accused are but one factor to be considered in determining whether the confession was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. The MSC has held that under a totality of the circumstances review, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights despite being seventeen, having a low IQ, and presenting testimony that he read at a fourth-grade level. See MSC McGowan.
In the case at hand, at the suppression hearing, Chambers testified that she had a “mental disability.” Her court-ordered mental evaluation reflects that Chambers had an IEP in high school. She dropped out of school in the ninth grade due to the birth of her first child. But she later obtained her high school diploma. As an adult, Chambers did not drive anywhere, but she otherwise functioned as an adult. Further, no other documents or records in her adult life suggested that Chambers had a mental disability so severe that she was unable to waive her Miranda rights. Although Chambers was generally uncooperative and often feigned memory problems, Dr. Storer opined that she had the ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and consult with counsel “with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.” Chambers’s mental deficiencies, if any, did not rise to the level of the mental disability discussed in McGowan. Even in McGowan, the defendant was found competent with far more mental deficiencies.
Accordingly, we find that Chambers initiated a conversation with law enforcement and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived her Miranda rights. The trial court did not err in denying Chambers’s motion to suppress her statement.