State v. Anderson

312 A.3d 1206

STATE of Delaware,

v.Nasir ANDERSON, Defendant.

ID No. 2302005204

Superior Court of Delaware.

Submitted: January 31, 2024

Decided: April 5, 2024

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress: DENIED.

John Downs, Esquire, and Ipek Kurul, Esquire (Argued), Deputy Attorneys General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for the State.

Peter W. Veith, Esquire (Argued), Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Defendant.

OPINION

Adams, J.

INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 2018, Charles Young (the "Victim") was shot and killed after two individuals unlawfully entered his home. The State alleges that Defendant Nasir Anderson ("Defendant") committed these acts alongside his now-deceased cousin, Rashaad Wisher. On February 13, 2023, a Superior Court grand jury indicted Defendant on nine counts, including Murder in the First Degree. On February 14, 2023, Wilmington Police Department arrested Defendant pursuant to a warrant issued under Superior Court Criminal Rule 9. The issue before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Defendant’s statements made to police after his arrest. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.¹

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to this motion are largely uncontested. The Wilmington Police Department ("WPD") interviewed Defendant on three occasions regarding the murder of the Victim.² The first interview occurred on June 15, 2018.³ After Detective Quinn from WPD read Defendant his Miranda rights, Defendant invoked his right to silence and right to counsel, and the interview ended.⁴ The first interview is not at issue in this motion.⁵

The second interview was on July 10, 2018. During the July 2018 interview, Detective Ball from WPD interrogated Defendant about two unsolved murders. After Detective Ball’s interrogation, Detective Quinn entered the room and interrogated Defendant about the Victim’s homicide.⁶ Defendant made incriminating statements about the Victim’s homicide during this interview.⁷ The State concedes that Defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights during the July 2018 interview and consequently anything said in this interview will not be admissible during the State’s case-in-chief.⁸ Defendant moved to suppress the statements made during the second interview, but given the State’s concessions, the issue is now moot.⁹

On February 14, 2023, Defendant was interviewed for a third time by Detective Jones and Criminal Investigator Rizzo, both from WPD.¹⁰ Detective Jones read Defendant his Miranda rights, and Defendant proceeded to make incriminating statements.¹¹ The relevant portion of the interview proceeded as follows:

DET. JONES: You don’t want to talk?

MR. ANDERSON: No.

DET. JONES: Okay. And that’s fair. Um, so you’ve been indicted for, uh, murder first degree.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: Uh, you’ve been indicted for some weapons offenses, uh, and some other things. I don’t know right off the top of my head, but –

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: I can tell you the big things are murder first degree, possession of a firearm, commission of a felony –

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: -- uh, like, maybe endangering and stuff like that. So, um, you got indicted yesterday by the New Castle County grand jury.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: Um, so you’ll be processed at some point today on that (inaudible).

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: Okay? Um, you also – which is not really a big deal – you also got a speeding ticket.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: So, um, what. All right? Any questions?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, can I, uh, make a phone call?

DET. JONES: Yeah, you – one – once we put you downstairs, we’ll process you, they’ll – and you’ll see the judge and they’ll let you make a phone call.

MR. ANDERSON: But I ain’t gonna see the judge till, like, later – later – DET. JONES: Oh, I don’t think so. I think you’ll – I think they’ll get you in in the next couple hours probably. I mean, we – it’s just a quick paperwork. I don’t know if they’re gonna see you in superior court of I don’t know if they’re gonna see you in, like, the JP court here.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: But, um, you know, w-we’ll s you should be seeing –

MR. ANDERSON: (Cross talk) what the murder indictment on?

DET. JONES: Like, I mean, if you want to talk about it, I – I can talk to you about it. But I can’t (cross talk)

MR. ANDERSON: Is it the (inaudible) thing?

DET. JONES: Uh, you don’t want to talk. I mean, if you want to talk, like I said, at any time we can stop talking. I can answer these questions, but I can’t go back and forth with you.

MR. ANDERSON: All right. Can I ask another question then?

DET. JONES: So do you want to talk?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah.

DET. JONES: Okay, Do – do you understand those lights that I read to you?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: Each and every one of them?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: All right. You understand you’ve been indicted?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah.

DET. JONES: By the New Castle County grand jury?

MR. ANDERSON: Mm-hm.

DET. JONES: You understand that at any time you can – you don’t have to talk?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah.

DET. JONES: Okay. Cause before you didn’t want to talk. Now you want to talk?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, cause I just want to hear what you’re gonna ask me.

DET. JONES: Okay. Are you cool with talking?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: Okay. You understand everything?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

DET. JONES: I just want to make sure, cause I don’t want you to come back, (Inaudible) I didn’t say that, and all that. You – you totally understand what I just read to you?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, I know.

DET. JONES: Okay. And you’re willing to talk?

MR. ANDERSON: I know how this work.

DET. JONES: Okay.

MR. ANDERSON: (Inaudible) yeah.

DET. JONES: All right. All right. You’ve been indicted for a 2018 murder ---¹²

At issue is whether Defendant validly waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights before speaking. The State concedes that Defendant did initially state that he did not wish to speak.¹³ The State also does not dispute that Defendant was in custody and subject to custodial interrogation during the third interview.¹⁴ Defendant argues that his statements should be suppressed because his Fifth Amendment right to silence, his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel have all been violated. Defendant directs the Court to his initial assertion that he did not wish to speak, and that any subsequent waiver of his rights was not knowing or voluntary because he did not fully understand the nature of his rights, or the consequences of waiving them.¹⁵

The State argues Defendant did not invoke his right to an attorney; "[i]n fact, [Defendant] never mentioned the word lawyer or attorney or counsel during the entire interview."¹⁶ As to the right to silence, the State argues Defendant waived his prior invocation of the right when he pursued dialogue with the police by asking questions.¹⁷ The State further argues the officers were not coercive when they merely answered Defendant’s questions, especially since they repeatedly asked Defendant if he understood the lights he was waiving.¹⁸

At the suppression hearing, the State called Detective Jones to testify to the context and circumstances of the third interview. The Defendant did not present any witnesses. The Court requested supplemental briefing from both parties and briefing concluded on January 31, 2024. This Opinion addresses Defendant’s motion to suppress the statements made in the third interview on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds.

ANALYSIS

I. Right to Counsel

a. Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel

[1, 2] Miranda v. Arizona established a Fifth Amendment right to counsel during custodial interrogations.¹⁹ Miranda emphasized the risk of police coercion when an accused is interrogated without the assistance of counsel.²⁰ Miranda holds that a person subject to interrogation cannot be questioned after invoking their right to counsel unless they reinitiate conversation with the police and knowingly and intelligently waive the previously invoked right to counsel.²¹ The Fifth Amendment right to counsel is not offense-specific, meaning as soon as the right is invoked all questioning about any investigation must cease.²²

[3] In Crawford v. State, the Supreme Court of Delaware expanded the Fifth Amendment protections by adopting the "clarification approach."²³ If a suspect fails to invoke unequivocally the right to counsel, the clarification approach requires that police attempt to determine the suspect’s intention before proceeding, and must do so in a way that does "not coerce or intimidate the suspect or otherwise discourage his effort to secure counsel, if that is his intention."²⁴ If the suspect "does not wish the assistance of counsel" after clarification, then the interrogation can continue.²⁵ "A mere expression that the defendant thinks he needs counsel is not an explicit invocation of the right to counsel" but an ambiguous invocation that requires clarification by the officer.²⁶

[4] Defendant here did not request an attorney, or even mention an attorney at any point throughout the interview.²⁷ Instead, Defendant attempts to conflate his Miranda right to silence with his Miranda right to counsel, stating that by invoking unequivocally his right to silence, he also invoked his right to counsel.²⁸ No such conflation exists. For Fifth Amendment right to counsel protections, the Defendant must have either invoked unequivocally his right to counsel to Detective Jones, or must have equivocally invoked it, requiring Detective Jones to further clarify Defendant’s intentions.²⁹ By failing to mention the words "lawyer," "attorney," "counsel," or other comparable term, Defendant did not invoke his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at all. The Court holds Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.

b. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

The Sixth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "[i]n all...