Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 97-K-1806 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RONALD W. REEVES On Writ of Certiorari to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal PER CURIAM:* Granted in part; denied in part. Although "mere

declaratory descriptions of incriminating evidence do not invariably constitute interrogation for Miranda purposes," United States v. Payne, 954 F.2d 199, 202 (4th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added), and no fixed rule exists that "all such statements are objectively likely to result in incriminating responses by those in custody," id., 954 F.2d at 203, "whether descriptions of incriminating evidence constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation will depend on circumstances that are too numerous to catalogue." Id. In this

case, when police responded to the defendant's request for an attorney during the November 4, 1994 stationhouse interrogation by handing the defendant the arrest report, arrest warrant, and the warrant's supporting affidavit listing the evidence, and giving him misleading advice that this moment represented his "only chance" to tell them his side of the story, the officers went beyond simply informing the defendant of the basis for "why he was being held." Enoch v. Gramley, 70 F.3d 1490, 1500

(7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 95, 136 L.Ed.2d 50 (1996). By suggesting that the defendant had only

*

Traylor, J., not on panel.

See Rule IV, Part II, Sec. 3.

this one opportunity to respond to the evidence arrayed against him, the officers pressured him to continue speaking with them,

thereby foregoing his previously invoked right to have counsel present. (1981). Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880 In combination, the officers' actions and words were

reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response and amounted to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Rhode

Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed. 297 (1980); State v. Koon, 96-1208 (La. 5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 570, 139 L.Ed.2d 410 (1997); State v. Abadie, 612 So.2d 1, 6 (La. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 816. 114 S.Ct. 66, 126 L.Ed.2d 35 (1993). by deputies then continued at the jail. Webb, 755 F.2d 382 (5th Cir. 1985). The trial court therefore erred in admitting the defendant's November 4, 1994 statements. The case is remanded to the court Interrogation

See United States v.

of appeal to determine whether admission of the Edwards-defective statements was harmless. See Koon, 96-1208 at 9-14, 704 So.2d at

763-766; State v. Corley, 633 So.2d 151 (La. 1994); State v. Lee, 524 So.2d 1176, 1191 (La. 1987). application is denied. In all other respects, the

2



Download 97-K-1806 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RONALD REEVES.pdf

Louisiana Law