Facts
In April 2017, Detective Michael Suitor with the Corinth Police Department responded to the home of Shomarick Payne. Payne had been shot in the back of the head, his pants were partially pulled down, and the pant pockets were turned inside out. The house appeared to have been ransacked. A 9 mm shell casing that had been fired was found near Payne’s body as well as a clear plastic bag of cocaine. No gun was found in Payne’s home, but 9 mm ammunition was found in his bedroom.
The case went cold until 2019 when Payne’s father reached out to Detective Suitor with information. Based on the information, three suspects were developed—Antonio Reyes, Steven Patterson, and Sanchez Sorrell. Because there was not enough probable cause to make an arrest, the case again went cold.
In February 2021, Reyes was arrested on an unrelated charge, and Detective Suitor used that opportunity to question him about Payne’s murder. During the interview, which was video recorded, Reyes admitted he had information about Payne’s murder, but he denied being at Payne’s house when the shooting occurred. According to Reyes, Patterson and Sorrell left his house to go rob Payne. When Patterson and Sorrell returned to Reyes’s house, they had what Reyes believed to be Payne’s gun. Patterson was acting very nervous, and Sorrell was crying.
After his interview with Reyes, Detective Suitor spoke with Patterson, who had also been arrested on unrelated charges. Detective Suitor also spoke with Zachariah Tays, who voluntarily approached Detective Suitor and provided a statement regarding Payne’s murder. Based on his interviews with Patterson and Tays, Detective Suitor interviewed Reyes again in March.
During the second interview, which was video recorded, Reyes’s story changed. This time, Reyes admitted that he was present at Payne’s house when Payne was shot and that he had witnessed Payne’s murder. Reyes explained that the plan was to set up a drug deal, pretend to buy $100 of cocaine from Payne, and then rob and kill Payne. Reyes stated that he participated in the plan by providing the $100 for cocaine. According to Reyes, he was supposed to get back the $100 after Payne was robbed.
Shortly after Reyes’s second interview, Detective Suitor interviewed Sorrell. Sorrell’s interview was video recorded. Reyes, Patterson, Sorrell, and Tays were indicted and charged with capital murder. Both Sorrell and Tays pled guilty to lesser charges—Sorrell to manslaughter and burglary, and Tays to accessory after the fact. Patterson pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before trial, Reyes moved to suppress his statements made during both interviews with Detective Suitor. According to Reyes, he may have been impaired and/or intoxicated, and the statements were coerced and thus provided unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntarily. After a suppression hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Reyes was ultimately convicted of capital murder and sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Reyes argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress statements. MSC affirmed.
Analysis
A. First Interview
Reyes argues that his statements made during the first interview are inadmissible and should have been suppressed because the statements were provided involuntarily prior to having become sober. In support, Reyes relies on his testimony and his wife’s testimony at the suppression hearing.
Reyes testified that on the day he was arrested on unrelated charges, he snorted roxicodone when he woke up that morning, began drinking beer and whiskey around 1:00 p.m., and began snorting cocaine around 5:00 p.m. He further testified that he drank a lot of beer and tequila that night at dinner. According to Reyes, he did not have a clear memory of meeting with and talking to Detective Suitor because he was high at the time. Reyes noted a mistake he had made during his interview, specifically that he had mistakenly stated that he had completed the eleventh grade when in fact he had only completed the tenth grade.
Reyes’s wife also testified regarding his drug and alcohol use. She testified that on the day of his arrest, Reyes drank beer for about five hours before they went to dinner and continued drinking beer and tequila at dinner. She further testified that although she did not see Reyes use drugs that day, she could tell when he was high based on how angry he gets and how his eyes look. She explained that when Reyes goes on a drug and alcohol binge, he typically sleeps late the next day and that it takes him nearly twenty-four hours to clear his mind.
But despite this testimony, all law-enforcement officers involved testified that Reyes did not appear intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Officer Samuel Gaskin, the arresting officer, testified that Reyes did not seem impaired by alcohol or drugs, that he effectively communicated, that his speech was fine, that he did not smell of alcohol, and that he understood what was happening.
Detective Suitor interviewed Reyes more than twelve hours after Reyes’s arrest. According to Detective Suitor, Reyes did not exhibit any behavior that indicated he was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the interview. Detective Suitor testified that Reyes read and understood his Miranda rights and that Reyes did not have any trouble providing the personal information contained in the waiver of rights form such as his name, date of birth, address, phone number, and level of education. Detective Suitor further testified that Reyes understood his questions and what was going on, that Reyes spoke clearly, that Reyes was in control of his faculties, that Reyes was not shaking, and that Reyes exhibited no signs of mania.
Detective Dale Green was also present during the first interview. Detective Green testified that at no time during the interview did Reyes appear intoxicated or under the influence and that Reyes was able to communicate effectively.
Reyes’s interview with Detectives Suitor and Green was video recorded. The video was played for the trial court during the suppression hearing and is included in the record. The video reflects that Reyes was coherent, spoke clearly, communicated effectively, had no trouble recalling or providing information to the detectives, and understood what was going on. As the trial court noted, It’s uncontested that Reyes was drinking prior to the officer’s involvement and may have even drank a lot. May have even used cocaine and pills and all these other things. But the officer testified when he took him in that night, he didn’t . . . seem to think he was overly intoxicated at that time. But more importantly, 12 hours later, we have his statement on video. And regardless of what all of you have said and argued about, I got to see it live. And from what I could tell, you know, although he may have been a little hung over, he seemed to have coherent understanding, able to carry about reasonable conversations. He had control of his faculties. . . . He didn’t seem irritable, nervous, trembling, or easily excitable. Actually, he seemed the opposite, calm and collected.. . . .So, watching the video, I see nothing to lead me to believe that Reyes was intoxicated or incoherent or unable to testify or make statements and willfully waive any rights he had.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that Reyes’s statements during the first interview were the product of his free and rational choice.
B. Second Interview
Reyes was interviewed a second time by Detective Suitor on March 9, 2021. Detective Bo Swindle also participated in the second interview. The second interview was video recorded. The video was played for the trial court during the suppression hearing and is included in the record. The video begins with Reyes providing Detective Suitor with his full name, date of birth, phone number, level of education, and confirmation that he can read and write. Detective Suitor then advised Reyes of his Miranda rights and asked whether Reyes understood these rights and wanted to talk. Reyes responded affirmatively. The remaining applicable portions of the video are as follows:
Investigator Suitor: Did you see who else is in jail?
Reyes: (Nods his head affirmatively.)
Investigator Suitor: Who all did you see?
Reyes: I just see Steven [Patterson] . . . .
Investigator Suitor: Did you see Zac [Tays]?
Reyes: No.
Investigator Suitor: Zac’s back there too . . . . They decided they were going to tell the truth. . . . You ain’t been fully truthful because you were there. Were you not there when they killed [Payne]?
Reyes: Not in there but . . . .
Investigator Suitor: Listen, uh, Antonio, you’re going to go down real hard if you don’t start being honest, like really, really hard, like you ain’t gonna see the light of day, ok. You need to give me a truthful statement today about the murder of Shomarick Payne. Because you see that laptop and all that stuff on my desk, I’ve got recordings of Steven Patterson’s statement of what happened. I have recordings of Zac Tays who was there and who admits to being there along with you and along with Sanchez Sorrell. So I need you to start from the beginning and if you want any kind of mercy from the [district attorney], work any kind of deal, today’s the day, ok. . . . So, if you’re not the trigger man, you need to tell me everything that happened and everything that you saw because I’m going to tell you, Steven said you killed [Payne]. . . .
Reyes: No, I didn’t kill him. . . . I’m not lying to you.
Investigator Suitor: You’re lying to me about being there though because you were there. . . .
Reyes: I was there with Zac because Zac asked to go, so we went.
Investigator Suitor: You need to be really truthful. Last time you were sitting here, you told us that you were not there, not there at all and we know that’s a lie. . . . We know more than you think we know. . . . You need . . . to start telling the truth . . . .You wanna start from how all of this began, where it began at and how it all played out?
Reyes: How bad will it mess me up if I don’t get a lawyer, that is my question.
Investigator Suitor: Well, you know you already lied to us. I’m not going to tell you to get one. I’m not going to tell you not to get one. But I’m telling you, this is my opinion, if I were sitting where you were, I’d be telling the truth right now. . . .
Reyes: Ok.
Investigator Suitor: You want to see what these other guys are saying? You can look at it if you want to do that before you make your decision ok, to know that we’re being honest with you.
Reyes: (Nods his head affirmatively).
Reyes: (Watching the video recorded statements from Patterson and Tays). I can’t believe it. . . . He’s lying.
Investigator Suitor: . . . Let’s talk. . . . Now that you see what we got, you need to tell the truth.
Reyes argues that the statements he made during the second interview were the result of threats and promises and are therefore inadmissable. He further argues that his right to counsel was violated.
B1. Threats and Promises
Reyes asserts that the video starts out with threats, i.e., “you’re going to go down real hard if you don’t start being honest” and a promise of leniency, i.e., “if you want any kind of mercy from the [district attorney], work any kind of deal, today’s the day.” But despite Reyes’s assertion, the video does not begin with threats or promises. Instead, the video begins with Detective Suitor getting basic information from Reyes such as his full name and date of birth and then advising Reyes of his Miranda rights. And as the video clearly reflects, Reyes voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk to Detectives Suitor and Swindle before any discussion occurred.
Moreover, the video reflects that Reyes’s statements were not the result of threat, inducements or promises. Detectives Suitor and Swindle explained to Reyes that they had spoken with the other individuals involved and present at Payne’s house at the time of the shooting, that they knew Reyes was lying about his presence at the scene, and that Reyes needed to tell the truth. There is nothing to indicate that Reyes’s statements regarding his side of the story were made as the result of any threats or promises by Detectives Suitor or Swindle. Instead, the video reflects that Reyes voluntarily provided his statements after he heard what the other individuals, specifically Patterson, had said about him and his involvement in the shooting.
Reyes also asserts that he was threatened with the death penalty “off camera” before the video recording started. But the two detectives present during the second interview disputed this and testified that this was not true. The resolution of conflicting testimony regarding voluntariness is a question of fact to be resolved by the trial judge at the suppression hearing.
B2. Right to Counsel
Reyes argues that Detective Suitor violated his right to counsel since Detective Suitor continued the interview after he asked about an attorney. SCOTUS explained in Davis, 512 US 452 (1994), that if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.
Here, the video reflects that Reyes’s question—“how bad will it mess me up if I don’t get a lawyer?”—was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. Indeed, Reyes’s question was not a sufficiently clear request for an attorney or some statement that could reasonably be construed to be an expression for the assistance of an attorney. Instead, his question was an ambiguous invocation of his right to counsel. Notably, in response to Reyes’s question, Detective Suitor explained that he could not tell Reyes to get an attorney or not to get an attorney, but Detective Suitor offered Reyes the opportunity to see what the other individuals had said about him before making his decision regarding counsel. After Reyes saw the other video statements, he never asked for an attorney or invoked his right to counsel. Instead, Reyes freely and voluntarily provided his version of events to Detectives Suitor and Swindle. Because Reyes never made an unambiguous or unequivocal request for an attorney, neither Detective Suitor nor Detective Swindle had an obligation to stop questioning Reyes.
See MCOA Fletcher (It is now clear, under both the Federal Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution, that officers have no obligation to stop questioning a suspect in the absence of an unambiguous or unequivocal request for an attorney or assertion of the right to remain silent).