Lipford v. State

TYSEAN A. LIPFORD v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 801

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

December 11, 2020

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 131568C

UNREPORTED

Graeff, Beachley, Salmon, James P. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Salmon, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

In the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 21, 2017, Christian Matthews, age 17, was strangled to death. The murder took place in the victim's bedroom at his home in Silver Spring, Maryland. Two days after the murder, Tysean A. Lipford ("Lipford" or "appellant"), was interviewed by two female detectives employed by the Montgomery County Police Department concerning the Matthews murder. During that interview, Lipford confessed that he had strangled Matthews.

Lipford was indicted for first-degree murder of Matthews in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. His counsel filed a motion to suppress Lipford's confession along with other evidence that was uncovered as a result of what Lipford told the police in the course of that confession. That motion was heard on September 21, 2018.

No witnesses were called at the suppression hearing but the State introduced into evidence the entire transcript of the police interview of Lipford together with a videotape of that interview. The transcript showed that the first four hours (approximately) of that interview took place before Lipford had been advised of his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) (hereafter "the unwarned portion of the interview").

As discussed more fully infra, during the unwarned portion of the interview, Lipford made some incriminating statements concerning the death of Matthews but he did not confess to the murder. He was then advised of his Miranda rights (hereafter "the warned portion of the interview"). During the warned portion of the interview, appellant made a full confession.

At the suppression hearing, Lipford's counsel argued that during the unwarned portion of the interview, his client was subjected to custodial interrogation and thereforethe detectives were required to give him his Miranda warning. According to counsel, because Lipford was not warned of his Miranda rights, everything said in that unwarned portion of the interview should be suppressed. Moreover, counsel argued that the Miranda warnings belatedly given to Lipford were ineffective because the police intentionally used a two-step interrogation technique in violation of principles enunciated in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).¹ On that basis, according to Lipford, all post warning statements should be suppressed. Lipford's counsel also argued that, apart from the Seibert violation, the State failed to establish that Lipford had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, which required suppression of all statements made by appellant while subject to custodial interrogation. Lastly, counsel argued that the State failed to establish that the statements given to the police by Lipford were made voluntarily, and therefore the statements should be suppressed, even apart from the violation of principles enunciated in Miranda and its progeny.

The motions judge, after considering oral argument of counsel together with their written submissions, concluded that Lipford, for Miranda purposes, was not "in custody" at any time while being interrogated and therefore was not entitled to Miranda warnings. The judge ruled in the alternative that even if appellant was in custody after he was given his Miranda warnings, he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights by his subsequentconduct. Accordingly, appellant's motion to suppress was denied. The court also ruled that the confession was voluntary.

Lipford was tried before a jury in a trial that began on January 14 and ended on January 22, 2019. The jury acquitted Lipford of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder. On June 28, 2019, the court sentenced Lipford to 30 years imprisonment. This timely appeal followed, in which Lipford raises the same issues that he raised at the suppression hearing.

Because the issues raised in the appeal deal exclusively with whether the trial judge erred in denying Lipford's motion to suppress, there is no need for us to discuss the evidence presented to the jury, except to point out that both the unwarned portion of appellant's statement to the police together with the portions of his statement given after Lipford was advised of his Miranda rights were used as evidence against appellant—except for a few unimportant deletions.

I.THE UNWARNED PORTION OF THE POLICE INTERVIEW

A. Background Information Appellant Provided at the Interview

At the time of the interview Lipford was 19 years old, had a high school education, and worked at a Red Lobster restaurant in Montgomery County. Appellant's girlfriend, Leandra Matthews ("Leandra"), was the sister of the murder victim, Christian Matthews. Leandra was also the mother of appellant's eighteen-month-old daughter and, at the time of the interview, Leandra was six months pregnant with what would be appellant's second child.

On the date of the murder, Leandra lived with the victim along with her mother, a twin sister named Lemay Matthews, and two other siblings at 1021 Mondrian Terrace, Silver Spring, Maryland. Appellant, who usually lived with his mother, visited his girlfriend from time to time at the Mondrian Terrace address. On the date of the murder, however, appellant was living with a friend of his because he had had an argument with his mother and she had asked him to leave.

B. Circumstances Surrounding the Interview

Appellant was interviewed at a Montgomery County police station by Detective Michelle Smith and Detective Beverly Then. Lipford came to the interview voluntarily after one of the detectives had told his mother that they wished to speak with him. Lipford's mother drove him to the police station and, before talking to Lipford, the two detectives talked to his mother in the same room where appellant was later interviewed. The room where appellant was questioned was small but carpeted, well-lighted and improved by a comfortable couch, two chairs and a small table. In the room there was no place to handcuff a person. Appellant apparently thought the room was comfortable because on the tape, prior to questioning, he was heard commenting to himself that it was a "cool little room" and that he could imagine converting the room into a "man cave" with a television, video games and a "little mini fridge with snacks." Appellant entered the room at 1:25 p.m.

The detectives carried no weapons and were not in uniform. Because the interview room was small, the detectives sat relatively close to appellant but, as the suppression judge said, referring to one of the detectives, the tone of the detective's voice was "soothing" andher technique was "consoling" and "nurturing, . . . [like] a mother that had a child that had had a rough day at school...."

After obtaining some background information from appellant concerning where he worked, his educational background and the fact that he was the father of a daughter with a son "on the way," Detective Smith told appellant at 1:35 p.m. the following:

[E]ven though this doesn't look like it, it is a police station, soyou'refreetogoatanytime, but we appreciate . . . you coming in. We just want to talk to you a little bit, okay? We talked to your mom and she was very nice. . . .

(Emphasis added.)

There followed more "small talk" concerning where appellant and his mother were currently staying and who was living with them. After additional casual conversation concerning subjects such as where appellant met his girlfriend, how long they had been dating and how frequently he saw his girlfriend, Detective Smith asked appellant to describe "family life" at the house where Leandra lived with the victim, her sisters and her mother. Appellant replied:

I mean from what I see, they all get along well, except for [the victim], . . . I don't know what's wrong, he just doesn't like me I guess, I don't know. But everyone else gets along well. Everybody else good.

Appellant added that he understood from what he had been told by people that lived with the victim, that the victim used to cut up clothing belonging to his (the victim's) sisters. Appellant also said that sometimes the victim would fight with his youngest (seven or eight-year-old) sister.

With no prompting, Lipford told the detectives that the victim was, in effect, "two-faced" because when no one else was around, the victim was friendly toward him, but whenthe victim was among friends, he would make derogatory comments concerning him. For instance, once when appellant was visiting his girlfriend, appellant heard the victim, who was downstairs, say to his friends, in reference to appellant: "that bitch, that n***** Bambi need to come downstairs." Appellant interpreted those words as a threat, which he ignored because he just wanted to stay upstairs with his infant daughter.

Appellant initially told the detectives that the last time he was at his girlfriend's house was on Sunday evening (March 19, 2017). After he left her house that night, he stayed with a friend all day Monday but left at about 2:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, at which time he phoned and asked his mother to come and get him. The reason he gave the detective for wanting to leave his friend's house at such an odd hour was that his friend was "going out of town."

Appellant told the detective that his mother arrived at the friend's house on Tuesday at about 2:20 a.m. During the trip in his mother's car from his friend's house to the hotel where his mother was staying, the victim's mother phoned appellant's mother and told her...