State v. Moore

112 N.E.3d 1

2018 Ohio 1778

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Allison Elizabeth MOORE, Defendant–Appellant.

NO. CA2017–07–110

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren County.

May 7, 2018

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, Kirsten A. Brandt, 520 Justice Drive, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for plaintiff-appellee

Kim Bui, 8080 Beckett Center Drive, Suite 112, West Chester, Ohio 45069, for defendant-appellant

OPINION

HENDRICKSON, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Allison Elizabeth Moore, appeals from a decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas denying her motion to suppress evidence. Appellant further appeals the trial court's imposition of a 36–month prison sentence for her conviction for tampering with evidence. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm appellant's conviction and sentence.

{¶ 2} On December 25, 2016, a dead body was found in the middle of Montgomery Avenue in Warren County, Ohio. An investigation by the Warren County Sheriff's Office (WCSO) revealed that Jeremy Foxx had been shot in the back of the head by Zachary Wilson while inside of a vehicle. Appellant was also inside the vehicle when the shooting occurred. Appellant attempted to clean up the blood in the vehicle before helping to burn or depose of the items used to clean the vehicle. Appellant and Wilson then drove to Kentucky, where the vehicle they were driving was painted and disguised.

{¶ 3} On December 27, 2016, a warrant was issued for Wilson's arrest. Detectives with the WCSO contacted Wilson's mother to notify her of the warrant, as she had been aiding the officers in their effort to track down Wilson. Wilson's mother informed the detectives that she had picked up Wilson and appellant in Kentucky and was bringing them to the sheriff's office. After Wilson and appellant arrived at the WCSO around 5:30 p.m. on December 27, 2016, Wilson was arrested. Appellant took a nap at the WCSO before being interviewed by detectives. Following this interview, appellant left the sheriff's office with her mother.

{¶ 4} Appellant was subsequently indicted on one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the third degree. She filed a motion to suppress her December 27, 2016 statement to law enforcement, arguing the statement was obtained in violation of her constitutional rights as the detectives failed to advise her of her Miranda rights prior to the interrogation. She also claimed her statement was not voluntary as she was under the influence of narcotics at the time of the interview.

{¶ 5} A hearing on appellant's motion to suppress was held on April 20, 2017. The state introduced, and the trial court accepted into evidence, an audio and video recording of appellant's December 27, 2016 interview, which lasted approximately 55 minutes. The state called Detective Paul Barger as its sole witness. Barger explained that at the time Wilson's mother brought Wilson and appellant to the WCSO on December 27, 2016, only an arrest warrant for Wilson had been issued. Neither he nor any other detective asked Wilson's mother to bring appellant to the sheriff's office.

{¶ 6} Once Wilson and appellant arrived at the sheriff's office, they were both placed in handcuffs for officer safety. After appellant was patted down, she was taken into the front training room of the WCSO and the handcuffs were removed. While Wilson was being interviewed for approximately two hours, appellant was left in the training room. Appellant was given a can of soda and a blanket, and she fell asleep.

{¶ 7} Once Wilson's interview was over, appellant was brought into the interview room to be questioned by Barger and Detective Wyatt. Appellant was not provided with Miranda warnings at this time. Barger informed appellant that she was not under arrest and was free to leave. Appellant was asked numerous times if she was "okay" to talk with the detectives and whether she wanted to talk to them. Appellant told Barger and Wyatt that she wanted to talk to them and "wanted to get the information out there that it was self-defense." Barger testified that although the door to the interview room was closed for privacy, appellant's path to the door was free and clear.

{¶ 8} Appellant was not in handcuffs or otherwise restrained during the interview. Barger testified appellant gave "very specific, very precise" details about the events surrounding the shooting. Although it took appellant "a little bit to answer some of the questions because she wanted to make sure she had them correct," she was able to provide information "as to where they had gone, what gas stations they had stopped at, how they had gotten lost, whose houses they went to, [and] people she talked to." Appellant did not act in a manner that gave Barger concern that she was under the influence of any substance. When questioned by Barger and Wyatt as to whether she was under the influence, appellant stated, "no."

{¶ 9} Barger testified appellant was not threatened or coerced at any time during the interview. Barger explained that the interview was stopped after about 55 minutes, once the detectives sensed appellant was getting tired. Prior to leaving the sheriff's office with her mother, appellant told the detectives that if they needed anything else, they could contact her and she would be willing to talk to them some more.

{¶ 10} Following Barger's testimony, appellant took the stand and admitted she voluntarily went to the sheriff's office with Wilson and his mother. She stated that she knew there was an arrest warrant for Wilson and she believed the detectives wanted to speak with her. Appellant estimated that she was in handcuffs for approximately 10 to 15 minutes upon her arrival of WCSO, but stated she was uncuffed after she was "patted * * * down and [they] made sure I didn't have anything on me."

{¶ 11} Appellant testified that at the time of the interview, she was so tired, sick, and traumatized that she barely understood what she was saying and it took her a long time to process what she was being asked by the detectives. Appellant stated she had taken a Xanax and was "coming off of meth" at the time she arrived at the sheriff's office. She claimed she informed an officer of her drug use while waiting in the training room. Although she was told by Barger and Wyatt that she could stop the interview and leave at any time, appellant stated she felt like she could not leave until she gave a statement because she had been placed in handcuffs when entering the building and "was a witness." She felt if she did not give a statement she would be arrested.

{¶ 12} Appellant testified that at the time of the interview, she was 23 years old, had no prior contact with law enforcement, had never been read her Miranda rights, and did not understand that she had the right to remain silent and a right to speak with an attorney. She then admitted she had previously been arrested and booked into the Hamilton County Jail for "obstruction." Appellant testified that, had she known she had the right to remain silent, she would have done so.

{¶ 13} After considering the foregoing testimony and evidence, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress. The court concluded that Miranda warnings were not required as "a reasonable person in [appellant's] position would have understood * * * her situation and known that she was free to leave. No formal arrest or restraint on [appellant's] freedom of movement occurred in this case." The court further found appellant's statement was voluntary, nothing that "[t]hough [appellant] now indicates she was under the influence of narcotics, she told the officers at the time that she was not under the influence of any substances and she answered the officers' questions clearly, coherently, and without any indication she was not coherent."

{¶ 14} Following the denial of her motion to suppress, appellant entered a no contest plea to the tampering with evidence charge. The court accepted her plea, ordered that a presentence investigation report ("PSI") be prepared, and set the matter for sentencing. On July 11, 2017, appellant appeared before the court and was sentenced to 36 months in prison, with jail-time credit for 72 days.

{¶ 15} Appellant timely appealed, raising two assignments of error for our review.

{¶ 16} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 17} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.

{¶ 18} In her first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress her December 27, 2016 statement to law enforcement. Appellant maintains that she was in custody on December 27, 2016, and that her constitutional rights were violated by the detectives' failure to advise her of her Miranda rights before conducting the custodial interrogation. She further argues that the evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing demonstrated that she "was [not] of sound mind during the interview" and that her statement should have been suppressed as it was not voluntarily made.

{¶ 19} Our review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Cochran , 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2006-10-023, 2007-Ohio-3353, 2007 WL 1880207, ¶ 12. Acting as the trier of fact, the trial court is in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness credibility. Id. Therefore, when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, a reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Oatis , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-03-074, 2005-Ohio-6038, 2005 WL 3031883, ¶ 10. "An appellate court, however, independently reviews the trial court's legal conclusions based on those facts and determines, without deference to the trial court's decision, whether as a matter of law, the facts satisfy the appropriate legal standard." Cochran at ¶ 12.

{¶ 20} "It is well established the ‘prosecution may not use...