Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed Vaclav Plch’s first-degree murder conviction. The court held that police comments made after Plch invoked his right to counsel constituted interrogation under Miranda and Innis, but concluded that Plch later initiated further discussions and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel. The court also upheld the admission of evidence obtained under a warrant after excising information derived from an earlier illegal search and affirmed limits on evidence concerning the victim’s prescription-drug use.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether police violated Miranda and the defendant's right to counsel by making statements reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response after the defendant invoked his right to counsel.
- Whether the defendant initiated further discussions with police and knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his previously invoked right to counsel.
- Whether the Miranda warnings adequately informed the defendant of his right to have counsel present during questioning and of his right to appointed counsel.
- Whether evidence obtained under a search warrant was subject to suppression because the warrant affidavit included information derived from a prior illegal search.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by limiting evidence concerning the victim's prescription-drug use under New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b).
Holdings
- Lieutenant Putney's comments urging the defendant to reveal the location of the victim's body parts were the functional equivalent of interrogation because police should have known they were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The police therefore violated Miranda and Innis by failing to cease interrogation after the defendant invoked his right to counsel.
- The later statements were admissible because the defendant initiated further communication with police independently of the improper prompting and then knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
- The warnings adequately informed the defendant of his right to have counsel present before and during questioning and of his right to appointed counsel.
- Evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was not suppressible because, after excising the information obtained during the prior illegal search, the remaining affidavit established probable cause.
- The trial court did not commit an unsustainable exercise of discretion by limiting the evidence concerning the victim's prescription-drug use.
Key quotations
“That the defendant did not respond, or was prevented from doing so, does not answer the question whether Lieutenant Putney’s comments ■ were “[a] practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from [the] suspect.”” (614)
“Accordingly, we conclude that the police violated the dictates of Miranda and Innis by failing to cease interrogation of the defendant.” (616)
“Thus, to test the validity of a search warrant issued on an affidavit referencing illegally seized evidence, the reviewing court excises the tainted information and examines the remaining information to determine whether it establishes probable cause.” (620)
“We therefore adopt the approach, under our State Constitution, that in reviewing the warnings given, “[t]he inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.”” (619)
Factual background
A headless, dismembered body identified as Mary Stetson was found in the Piscataquog River, and an autopsy attributed her death to multiple stab wounds. After the defendant's disappearance, police investigated his apartment, obtained consents and a search warrant, and recovered blood evidence consistent with DNA profiles of the defendant and victim. After his arrest in Texas, the defendant initially waived Miranda rights, later requested a lawyer, and subsequently made incriminating statements after reinitiating communication and expressly waiving his right to counsel. The defendant also sought to introduce evidence that the victim used prescription drugs to support his claim that alcohol and pills caused him to black out.
Procedural history
The trial court denied the defendant's motions to suppress statements made during Texas police interviews and evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court also limited evidence concerning the victim's prescription-drug use under New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 403 and 404(b). The defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed.