STATE v RORVIK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 85-620 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA O R F F 1986 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t -vsJOSEPH F O D R O R V I K , L Y Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL F O : R M D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e N i n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f T e t o n , The Honorable R. D . M c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For Appellant: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana John P a u l s o n , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , Helena R u s s e l l R . Andrews, Teton County A t t o r n e y , C h o t e a u , Montana For Respondent: C h a r l e s M. J o s l y n , Choteau, Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: NUV 1d 1986 Sept. 25, November 1 8 , 1986 1986 Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr. delivered the Opinion of the Court. The State of Montana appeals from an order of the Ninth Judicial District suppress. Court granting defendant's motion to We reverse and remand. During the early morning hours of January 13, 1985, a burglary occurred at the residence of Lloyd Cunniff in Choteau, Montana. and Joanne Numerous undergarments and swimsuits belonging to Joanne were stolen. were valued at more than $300. The stolen items The burglary was reported to the Teton County Sheriff's office and Ms. Cunniff informed the investigating officer that she suspected defendant. On January 14, 1985, Deputy Sheriff William Hicks and Choteau Police Chief Anderson went to defendant's home and asked him to accompany them to the sheriff's office for an interview. Deputy Hicks desired to discuss the Cunniff burglary and Chief Anderson suspected defendant of taking a book from the Choteau library. interview and office. accompanied Defendant agreed to the the officers to the sheriff's He was not placed under arrest. At the sheriff's office, Chief Anderson read defendant his Miranda rights and defendant signed a waiver of rights. First, Chief Anderson questioned defendant concerning the stolen library book. Deputy Hicks then questioned defendant about the Cunniff burglary. Hicks requested that defendant take a polygraph test and defendant refused. Defendant was told that there were fingerprints and footprints found at the residence which would possibly link him to the crime. statements were untrue. suggested declined that he and make stated he These Hicks pressed defendant further and a written statement. Defendant wanted talk attorney. to to an Questioning continued for another few minutes then the i n t e r v i e w was t e r m i n a t e d . During the next week, Chief Anderson encountered d e f e n d a n t on t h e s t r e e t and on two o c c a s i o n s asked d e f e n d a n t i f he had t a l k e d t o h i s a t t o r n e y . Defendant responded t h a t he had been busy b u t would a t t e m p t t o do s o . 1985, Chief Anderson again met defendant O January 2 1 , n on the street. Defendant s t i l l had n o t spoken w i t h an a t t o r n e y b u t a g r e e d t o go t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e f o r a n o t h e r i n t e r v i e w . and Hicks did not question defendant, however Anderson defendant a g r e e d a t t h i s t i m e t o submit t o a p o l y g r a p h t e s t upon b e i n g a s s u r e d t h e r e s u l t s c o u l d n o t be used a s e v i d e n c e . The p o l y g r a p h e x a m i n a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n Shelby on J a n u a r y 1985. 23, Hicks. Defendant was transported t o Shelby by Deputy Defendant s i g n e d a p o l y g r a p h p e r m i s s i o n form and was a d v i s e d t h a t t h e t e s t r e s u l t s c o u l d n o t b e used a s e v i d e n c e . Following t h e t e s t , t h e examiner informed Deputy Hicks t h a t d e f e n d a n t had been d e c e p t i v e on f o u r q u e s t i o n s . Deputy Hicks t o l d d e f e n d a n t he had been u n t r u t h f u l and a s k e d i f he wanted t o confess t o t h e burglary. Defendant d e s i r e d t o g i v e a statement defendant so Hicks again had sign a waiver of r i g h t s form. Hicks problem told Hicks defendant would do that everything d e f e n d a n t r e c e i v e d some h e l p . do this unless I'm if drunk." he had any possible to kind see of a that Defendant t h e n s a i d , " I n e v e r Defendant confessed to the Cunniff b u r g l a r y and a l s o produced a gem s t o n e he had s t o l e n from another requested home they in return w r i t t e n statement. Choteau. to At Choteau that where point, he defendant would sign a Pursuant to Hick ' s request, Hicks and defendant stopped at defendant's burglaries. taped home to gather the evidence from the They proceeded to the Sheriff's office where a interview was conducted and defendant confessed in detail to the burglaries. Following the interview, Hicks had defendant take home a written confession form to fill out, which defendant completed the following week. Counsel was appointed for defendant. A motion to suppress was filed covering all statements made by defendant and any evidence obtained as a result of such statements. The District Court granted the motion, finding that defendant had asserted his right to counsel and that further police initiated contact violated defendant's request for counsel. The State appeals and raises the following issue: Did the District Court err in granting defendant's motion to suppress? The District Court concluded that defendant's request for counsel at the first interview barred further police initiated interrogation. (1984) , U.S. decisive of the The court cited Smith Illinois 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488, as being A suppression issue. reading of Smith reveals that the rule against further questioning once a defendant has asserted custodial interrogation. his right to counsel applies to In the present case, the District Court did not address whether defendant had been subjected to custodial interrogation. Based upon the facts in the record, we find that he was not. In State v. Dupre (1982) 200 Mont. 165, 650 P.2d 1381, we held that a custodial interrogation situation requiring Miranda warnings does not arise merely because an individual is the focus of police investigation or because questioning takes place at the station house when there is no indication that freedom to depart is in any way restricted. In this instance, there is not a Miranda issue because defendant was given Miranda warnings prior to each interview with the Whether defendant was "in custody1' depends upon police. whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler (1983) 4 6 3 U.S. 1121, 1 0 3 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275. There is nothing in the record indicating defendant believed he was under arrest or was not free to leave the station house during any of the interviews. to Defendant agreed accompany the officers to the station house interviews and he agreed to take a polygraph test. for the The facts do not support defendant's assertion that he was not free to leave during the polygraph test and interview in Shelby. Defendant went to Shelby voluntarily to take the polygraph in order to clear up suspicion that he committed the Cunniff burglary. Further, during the interview following the polygraph test, defendant's request to return to Choteau was granted. The suppression issue in this case requires analyzing two questions. voluntary. First, whether defendant's confession was Second, whether defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. State v. Blakney (1982) 197 Mont. 131, 6 4 1 P.2d 1 0 4 5 . The District Court did not address the voluntariness issue. The court did address waiver, v. but concluded that Smith Illinois, supra, prohibited the police from further questioning of defendant once he had asserted his right to counsel. As noted above, the Smith rule does not apply in this instance for there was no custodial interroga.tion. We reverse the suppression order of the District Court and remand for hearing on the issues of voluntariness and waiver. We Concur: , / fd7LT6 Chief Justice I concur i the result. n \\ @ L d Justice T h , h & ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
