State v. Santos

2020 Ohio 1043

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. ERIC ALEXANDER SANTOS Defendant-Appellant

Appellate Case No. 28445

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

March 20, 2020

Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-1840

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)

OPINION

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by HEATHER N. KETTER, Atty. Reg. No. 0084470, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0067714, P.O. Box 340214, Beavercreek, Ohio 45434 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

WELBAUM, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Eric Alexander Santos, appeals from his conviction in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas after pleading no contest to tampering with evidence with a one-year firearm specification. In support of his appeal, Santos challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements obtained by law enforcement officers in the course of a homicide investigation. He further challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss the firearm specification accompanying the tampering charge. Because the motions were not denied in error, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Course of Proceedings

{¶ 2} On the night of February 1, 2016, police were called to a residence on Curundu Avenue in Trotwood, Ohio. Two men seated in a vehicle in the driveway had been fatally shot. Lead investigator Patrick Craun, a 12-year veteran of the Trotwood Police Department, responded to the scene sometime after 10:00 p.m. Thereafter, a fellow officer informed Detective Craun that a civilian at the perimeter of the crime scene said he lived in the house. That man was 19-year-old Eric Santos.

{¶ 3} Detective Craun approached Santos and his girlfriend, Aiste Maksvytyte. He asked if Santos would come to the police station to answer a few questions to help the officers piece together what had happened. Santos agreed. He rode to the station in the front seat of Detective Craun's unmarked sedan, unrestrained. The detective did not question Santos while en route.

The Trotwood Police Department Interview

{¶ 4} A short ride later, the two men arrived at the Trotwood Police Department and entered the building through a rear door. Detective Craun directed Santos to a conference room. Santos remained unrestrained. The detective explained that he wished to ask some questions pertaining to a homicide investigation. Santos asked if his roommate was one of the victims, but the detective did not answer because the victims' next of kin had not yet been notified.

{¶ 5} According to Detective Craun, Santos seemed to understand why he was there. The detective asked basic questions concerning the inhabitants of the residence, when Santos was home last, the last time he spoke with anyone at the residence, how he heard about what had happened, and why he came to the scene. The interview lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes.

{¶ 6} At the close of the interview, Detective Craun asked Santos to write out a witness statement. Santos complied. The detective left the room at one point, and he collected the completed statement when he returned. Santos remained in the conference room while the detective went to speak with other witnesses, including Aiste Maksvytyte.

{¶ 7} Unbeknownst to Detective Craun, there was an active warrant for Santos's arrest out of Greene County. A police department employee discovered the warrant while Detective Craun was interviewing Santos. Santos was taken into custody and, thereafter, transported to Greene County.

The Greene County Jail Interview

{¶ 8} The next day, Detective Craun received word that Santos's girlfriend, Aiste, had returned to the Trotwood police station. She confessed that she had lied about events from the previous night. Aiste indicated that Santos was, in fact, present at the house when the homicides occurred. Based upon this information, Detective Craun and Captain Dan Heath traveled to the Greene County Jail to speak with Santos that evening. The interview took place in a small room off of the common area in the jail. The room was not equipped for recording, but Detective Craun brought along a digital voice recorder to capture audio.

{¶ 9} Detective Craun reviewed Santos's constitutional rights prior to commencing questioning. He provided Santos with a standard form enumerating the rights in writing. The detective explained that he would read each of the rights out loud while Santos followed along on his own copy. Santos was to answer yes or no after each right was read to him lyand initial in the corresponding space next to each right. The detective further indicated there was a waiver of rights statement at the end of the form that Santos would be asked to read, and then he would sign and date the form.

{¶ 10} Detective Craun reviewed the rights section of the form with Santos at least twice. The process was not seamless. Nonetheless, at its conclusion, the detective was satisfied that Santos understood his rights. Santos did not ask any questions about waiving his rights. Instead, when asked if he wished to speak with the officers without counsel, he replied, "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah." Despite this apparent eagerness, however, the detective did not believe Santos was being forthcoming in answering questions. After nearly 40 minutes, Santos indicated he was done talking. The officers continued to probe, eliciting further incriminating statements. Santos again indicated his wish to stop talking. The officers pressed further before finally concluding the interview.

Criminal Prosecution in Montgomery County

{¶ 11} In August 2018, Santos was charged with one count of tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a third-degree felony. The charge was accompanied by a one-year firearm specification under R.C. 2929.14 and 2941.141. By way of a motion filed in November 2018, Santos sought to suppress the incriminating statements he made during the interview at the Trotwood Police station and during the interview at the Greene County Jail. Following a hearing, the trial court suppressed the statements made after Santos indicated his desire to halt the interview at the Greene County Jail, but denied the motion in all other respects.

{¶ 12} In February 2019, Santos moved to dismiss the firearm specification in the indictment. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, Santos entered a no contest plea to the tampering charge and firearm specification. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison, which was ordered to run concurrently to a term he was serving on an unrelated case out of Miami County. The one-year term on the firearm specification was ordered to run consecutively to this term.

{¶ 13} Santos now appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review.

II. Suppression of Statements

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Santos argues that the trial court wrongly declined to suppress the incriminating statements he made to police while being interviewed at the Trotwood Police Department and at the Greene County Jail. We disagree.

Standard of Review

{¶ 15} "In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court 'assumes the role of the trier of fact, and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.' " State v. Prater, 2012-Ohio-5105, 984 N.E.2d 36, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 592, 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994). "As a result, when we review suppression decisions, 'we are bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting those facts as true, we must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether they meet the applicable legal standard.' " Id., quoting Retherford.

Statements Made During Interview at Trotwood Police Department

{¶ 16} In the first issue raised under this assigned error, Santos maintains that any incriminating statements he made in response to Detective Craun's questions at the Trotwood Police Department on the night of February 1, 2016 should have been suppressed by the trial court because they were not preceded by Miranda warnings.

{¶ 17} "The right to [Miranda] warnings is grounded in the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against compelled self-incrimination." State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780, 2007-Ohio-4575, 876 N.E.2d 1304, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.), citing Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). "It is well established, however, that the police are not required to administer [Miranda] warnings to every individual they question." Id., citing State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 440, 678 N.E.2d 891 (1997). "Rather, only custodial interrogations trigger the need for [Miranda] warnings." Id., citing Biros at 440. (Other citations omitted.)

{¶ 18} " 'Custodial interrogation' means questioning initiated by the police after the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom to the degree associated with a formal arrest." (Citations omitted.) State v. Vineyard, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25854, 2014-Ohio-3846, ¶ 32; California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983), quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) ("the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a 'formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement' of the degree associated with a formal arrest").

{¶ 19} Santos avers that he did not go to the Trotwood Police Department voluntarily. He emphasizes the wording in his written statement wherein he said Detective Craun "[told] him to take a ride to his precinct." Once at the station, Santos maintains, he was never free to leave. Instead, he was taken into custody pursuant to the active warrant out of Greene County. Because...