Summary
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Macio Domingo Palacio Jr.'s convictions for first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. The court held that officers did not violate Palacio's Fifth Amendment rights because their statements and questions after his invocation of counsel did not constitute interrogation, and Palacio subsequently reinitiated questioning and waived his previously invoked right. The court also upheld the finding that his confession was voluntary and affirmed the denial of a change of venue.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Palacio's motion for a change of venue based on alleged prejudicial pretrial publicity.
- Whether officers violated Palacio's Fifth Amendment rights by interrogating him after he invoked his right to counsel.
- Whether Palacio's later statements and confession were involuntary because the officers used coercive interrogation tactics.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palacio's motion to change venue because the court reasonably applied the statutory nine-factor test and found that the evidence did not establish prejudice so great that Palacio could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Saline County.
- After a suspect invokes the right to counsel, interrogation must cease until counsel is made available or the suspect reinitiates the conversation. Explicit questioning is not automatically interrogation; it constitutes interrogation only when the officer should have known that the words or conduct were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
- The officers' statements informing Palacio of the charges against him and his girlfriend, and their questions about felony convictions and drug charges, were not interrogation under the circumstances.
- Palacio's confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and was not rendered inadmissible by the officers' statements about the charges, their questions about possible additional charges, or the statement concerning the victim's parents.
Key quotations
“The United States Supreme Court has described interrogation as "express questioning," or "any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect."” (442 P.3d at 472)
“Today we confirm that express questioning is not per se interrogation. Rather, it is subject to the same test as an officer's other conduct.” (442 P.3d at 474)
“Although "rare," a confession can be coerced even if officers complied with Miranda and the accused unambiguously waived the right to counsel.” (442 P.3d at 476)
Factual background
Palacio joined several men who drove to an area where a truck carrying Vince Johnson and Allie Saum passed by. At Gentry's direction, Palacio fired five shots toward the truck; one shot struck Saum, who died the next morning. Police later determined that shell casings and a projectile from the truck were fired from a Glock handgun found when Palacio's girlfriend attempted to conceal it during a police search of the residence. During a custodial interview, Palacio invoked his right to counsel, later asked to continue speaking without an attorney, waived that previously invoked right, and ultimately admitted firing toward the truck.
Procedural history
A Saline County jury convicted Palacio of first-degree murder under premeditation and felony-murder theories, attempted first-degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. The district court denied his motion to change venue and partially denied his motion to suppress, suppressing only statements made between his invocation of counsel and his later request to continue speaking. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole for 50 years on the murder conviction and concurrent terms on the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed.