Opinion
No. 2-181 / 01-0477.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, ALAN L. PEARSON, Judge.
Dean Davis appeals his convictions and sentences for multiple acts of child endangerment. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, Fred H. McCaw, County Attorney, and Christine Corken, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and HECHT, JJ.
Dean Davis appeals his convictions and sentences for multiple acts of child endangerment. We affirm.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
On June 11, 2000, Vicki Davis was out of the house performing errands. She left James, their one-month-old son, at home with her husband Dean Davis. When she returned, she noticed James's scrotum was swollen and discolored. The following day Vicki and Dean sought medical care for James. Upon examination, doctors could not locate James's left testicle. An ultrasound suggested the left testicle was not in the scrotum, but had been pushed into his abdomen. Doctors further discovered James had a torn frenulum, a broken left clavicle, a broken left toe, bruises on his face, scratches on his fingers, random scabs on his hands and feet, and unexplained red marks on his buttocks. Doctors determined James's injuries were not accidental.
On the morning of June 16, 2000, a police officer went to the Davis's home. The officer informed Dean that Corporal James Lembke wished to speak with him at 3:00 p.m. at the law enforcement center. Later that day, Dean walked to the law enforcement center and arrived shortly before 3:00 p.m. Lembke met Dean in the lobby and accompanied him to the interview room on the main floor of the center. The doors between the lobby and the rest of the building are locked for entry; however, the doors allow free departure. According to Lembke's testimony at the suppression hearing, he explained to Dean the interview was voluntary and he was free to leave at any time. Dean was not given Miranda warnings. Lembke questioned Dean about his knowledge of the injuries James had sustained.
Lisa Foley of DHS joined the interview twenty minutes later. Approximately ninety minutes into the interview, Lembke accused Dean of lying. Dean became upset, stood up, and started to leave the room. Lembke requested Dean return to the room, and he complied. Two hours into the interview, Dean requested a cigarette. Lembke accompanied Dean to the lobby, showing him the way, and Dean went to smoke a cigarette outside. After approximately ten minutes, Lembke found Dean in the lobby and escorted him back to the interview room. Shortly thereafter, Dean began to discuss his involvement in the injuries sustained by his son. The interview lasted almost four hours. Dean left the building through the front doors and was allowed to turn himself in a few days later for arrest.
On July 3, 2000, Dean was charged by trial information in file FECR43141 with multiple acts of child endangerment in violation of Iowa Code section 726.6A (1999). Dean filed a motion to suppress alleging his confession was obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion, finding Dean was not in custody at the time the inculpatory statements were made and therefore Miranda warnings were not required. The State filed a second trial information in file FECR45289 on January 8, 2001, charging Dean with four counts of child endangerment, two felonies and two aggravated misdemeanors, in violation of sections 726.6(b), 726.6(2), 702.18(1)(2), and 726.6(3).
On January 23, 2001, the district court held a stipulated bench trial in FECR45289. The district court found Dean guilty of all charges. At sentencing, the district court approved an agreement reached by the parties and dismissed the charges against Dean in FECR43141. The court sentenced Dean to ten years on each of the two felony counts, to be served consecutively, and to two years for the two misdemeanor courts, to be served concurrently. Notice of appeal was filed in FECR45289 and the district court granted Dean's Nunc Pro Tunc motion to merge the two actions for the purposes of appeal. On appeal, Dean contends (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to renew the motion to suppress in FECR45289.
II. Motion to Suppress.
Dean claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of a Miranda warning in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV.
Our review of a district court's refusal to suppress statements allegedly made in violation of constitutional guarantees is de novo. State v. Countryman, 572 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Iowa 1997). Under this review, we "make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record." State v. Howard, 509 N.W.2d 764, 767 (Iowa 1993). We give deference to the district court's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings. State v. Gravenish, 511 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Iowa 1994).
The determination of custody "depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on subjective views harbored either by the officer or the person being questioned." Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 557 (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1529, 128 L.Ed.2d 293, 298 (1994)). The "court must examine all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation, but the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Id. (citations omitted). The appropriate test is "whether a reasonable person in the [defendant's] position would understand himself to be in custody." State v. Deases, 518 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Iowa 1994). Relevant factors include:
(1) the language used to summon the individual; (2) the purpose, place and manner of the interrogation; (3) the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of his guilt; and (4) whether the defendant is free to leave the place of questioning.
Id.
Applying these factors to this case, it does not objectively appear Dean was in custody during his interview with Lembke. Dean was asked to meet Lembke at the law enforcement center and he voluntarily complied by walking to the station later that day. The interview took place with an officer and a civilian in an unlocked room. Dean was told the interview was voluntary and that he was free to leave. Dean left the room at one point in time, after being confronted with his guilt, but returned to continue the interview. Moreover, he left the room for a cigarette break outside of the building and returned inside the building. When the interview ended, Dean left the law enforcement center and was not arrested until several days later.
Because Dean was not in custody, the district court was correct in denying his motion to suppress his statements on the basis of Miranda. Furthermore, having found no merit in Dean's motion to suppress, we need not address his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
MILLER, J., concurs; MAHAN, P.J., concurs specially.
I concur specially. I think this case is very close on the "in custody" issue. However, after a careful review, I agree with the majority decision.