State v. Kryla

742 A.2d 1178 (1999) · Supreme Court of Rhode Island · December 6, 1999 · No. No. 98-431-C.A.

Summary

This Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion addresses a defendant's appeal of a first-degree murder conviction. The court reviewed two primary claims: the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress a videotaped police statement and the denial of a motion to declare a mistrial based on alleged improper judicial remarks. Applying Fourth Amendment and Miranda jurisprudence, the court found that the defendant was not illegally seized and voluntarily waived his rights before making the incriminating statement. The court also concluded that the trial justice's comments did not incurably prejudice the defendant, thereby affirming the conviction.

Court
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the Court
Lederberg; Weisberger, C.J.; Bourcier; Flanders; Goldberg
Jurisdiction
Rhode Island
Decision date
December 6, 1999
Docket number
No. 98-431-C.A.
Procedural posture
Appeal from conviction of first‑degree murder in the Superior Court of Rhode Island
Standard of review
De novo for Fourth Amendment and Miranda‑waiver issues; abuse of discretion for the trial judge's alleged prejudicial remarks.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Bradley Kryla v. State
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizuremiranda rightssuppression of evidencecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kryla's videotaped statement should be suppressed because the police arrest was illegal and his Miranda waiver was not voluntary
  2. Whether the trial judge's comments during the trial required a mistrial (motion to pass the case)

Holdings

  1. The Court held that Kryla was not seized or arrested; the police had probable cause; his Miranda waiver was knowing and voluntary; therefore the motion to suppress was denied.
  2. The Court held that although the trial judge's comment was improper and suggestive, it was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial; the motion to pass the case was denied.

Key quotations

Our conclusion that no seizure occurred is not affected by the fact that [the defendant] was not expressly told by the [officers] that [he] was free to decline to cooperate with their inquiry, for the voluntariness of [his] responses does not depend upon [him] having been so informed. (-)
It is our opinion that this comment crossed the bounds of impartiality. The remark was unnecessary, unfortunate, and unduly suggestive of the trial justice's impression of the weight to be afforded the testimony of defendant's key witness. (-)

Factual background

Bradley Kryla, then 17, and an accomplice, Derek Brown, lured Sherry Roy to a cemetery, beat her, and killed her with a stick and a tombstone. After the murder, Kryla was taken to the police station, advised of his rights, and gave a videotaped confession. He was later convicted of first‑degree murder.

Procedural history

The trial court convicted Kryla of first‑degree murder. The trial judge denied Kryla's motions to suppress his videotaped statement and to pass the case. Kryla appealed, asserting the statement was obtained after an illegal arrest and that the trial judge's remarks warranted a mistrial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…