Opinion
I.D. No. 0208004969
Submitted: August 13, 2003
Decided: August 22, 2003
Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Marie O'Connor Graham, Esquire, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware
Thomas D. Donovan, Esquire, Dover, Delaware
Dear Counsel:
Before this Court is Defendant Twitty's Motion to Suppress Defendant's taped statement to the police on the grounds that his Miranda rights were not given on the tape and that he did not voluntarily waive his rights. The Court has carefully reviewed the audio tape recording of Defendant's interview with Detective Porter of the Delaware State Police on August 8, 2002. After careful consideration of the Defendant's motion and the testimony and oral arguments produced at the suppression hearing it appears that:
In this Order the Court is not addressing the Defendant's other pending motions.
(1) On August 5, 2002, the Defendant allegedly sexually assaulted . . ., a minor. On the morning of August 8, 2002, Corporal Daddio escorted the Defendant from his home to Delaware State Police Troop 3 so that the Defendant could be questioned by Detective Porter.
(2) Detective Porter was the only witness at the suppression hearing. Detective Porter testified that at the beginning of his interview with the Defendant he read the Defendant his Miranda rights off of a small index card. The Defendant stated that he wanted to talk to the Detective to "tell his side of the story." To build a rapport, the Detective proceeded to talk to the Defendant for between 15 and 20 minutes before recording the conversation. The Defendant testified that during those few minutes he did not discuss the case. At approximately 7:33 a.m. Detective Porter conducted a taped interview. The tape begins as follows:
Porter: O.K. Today's date is August 8, 2002. I'm Detective Porter with Delaware State Police, and you are?
Twitty: Shawn Twitty
Porter: O.K. Shawn the time is 7:33 a.m., uhm, just for the record I did read you your rights, right?
Twitty: Yes sir.
Porter: You understand your rights?
Twitty: Yes sir.
Porter: You've had your rights read to you before?
Twitty: Yes Sir.
Porter: Having your rights in mind, do you wish to tell me your side of the story on this?
Twitty: Right, tell my side of the story.
(3) In Defendant's filed motion he argued that he was not read his Miranda rights. This argument was abandoned at the suppression hearing. Instead the Defendant argued that the Miranda warnings were not effective because they were given 15-20 minutes before the taped statement and then not repeated on the tape. Additionally Defendant argues that the mention of "I did read your rights" may not refer to the rights guaranteed by Miranda. Further Defendant argues that Defendant was intoxicated at the time of the interview and thus could not effectively waive his rights. At no time did the Defendant argue that any statement relating to the case was improperly taken before the reading of Defendants Miranda rights.
(4) There is no requirement that the reading of the Miranda rights be taped. Here Detective Porter testified that he read the Defendant his Miranda rights off of a card as was his custom. Then when the tape was turned on the Detective again for the record asked the Defendant if he was read his rights and having those rights in mind did he wish to give a statement. Since there is no indication that the event took place in any other way, it is apparent to this Court that the Defendant's rights were not violated.
(5) To be effective, the waiver by a suspect in a criminal investigation of the suspect's Miranda rights must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The burden is on the State to show the validity of the waiver. "Although intoxication may make a waiver invalid, "intoxication does not per se invalidate an otherwise proper waiver of rights.'" In the case at bar, no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing to support a claim of intoxication. The interview began between 7:00-7:30 a.m. and Detective Porter testified that Defendant did not appear intoxicated, nor did the Defendant indicate that he was intoxicated. Having listened to the audiotape, it does not appear that Defendant was intoxicated since he spoke clearly about the incident in question with little hesitation and in a forthright manner. A reasonable person could conclude that the Defendant had not been drinking or that his demeanor and responses did not evidence that he was under the influence. Further, in looking at the totality of the circumstances, it appears to this Court that even if the Defendant had used alcohol the night before this interview, the waiver of his rights was voluntary.
Virdin v. State, 780 A.2d 1024, 1033 (Del. 2001) (holding that is was not an abuse of discretion for a trial judge to find that Defendant voluntarily waived his rights even though Defendant admitted to the police he had used cocaine earlier and was still "a little bit" under the influence).
Id.
Id. (quoting Howard v. State, 458 A.2d 1180, 1183 (Del. 1983)).
(6) In conclusion, this Court finds that Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived his rights. Therefore, the Motion to Suppress the taped statement is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.