STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CLARICIA MARIA WILMER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-740 / 06-1339
Filed December 12, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CLARICIA MARIA WILMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Lawrence M.
Fautsch, Judge.
Defendant appeals her convictions of involuntary manslaughter and
nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Leslie M. Blair and Christopher M. Soppe of Blair & Fitzsimmons Law
Firm, Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, Ralph Potter, County Attorney, and Christine Corken, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Defendant-appellant,
Claricia
Wilmer,
appeals
her
convictions
of
involuntary manslaughter, in violation of Iowa Code section 707.5(1) (2005), and
nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy in violation of Iowa Code
section 707.8(2). The defendant contends the district court erred in: (1) refusing
to suppress statements the defendant made when she was originally questioned
by police; (2) ordering the defendant to wear a leg brace during trial; (3) making
incorrect rulings on hearsay objections; and (4) admitting autopsy photographs of
the victim. The defendant also argues she received ineffective assistance of
counsel when her trial attorney failed to object to the marshaling instruction on
nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy and the court should have
granted the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment on this conviction.
I.
BACKGROUND.
On the evening of September 1, 2005, Alberta Wilmer, the defendant’s
fourteen-year-old cousin, and several friends were approached on the street by a
group of people. A fight ensued and Alberta was injured. After a local adult
broke up the fight, Alberta’s twenty-eight-year-old cousin, the defendant, was
called.
The defendant called the police and an officer arrived to obtain
information about the incident.
After the police left, the defendant drove Alberta and two others to an
apartment house where the defendant planned to confront those who attacked
Alberta earlier. April Johnson was standing outside of the apartment building.
After April denied being at the earlier fight, the defendant, Alberta, and the two
3
other girls began hitting and kicking April. April fell down and after the group
continued hitting and kicking her, April screamed that she was pregnant. The
group then stopped the attack and returned to the car. At some point during the
attack, April was stabbed. She and her unborn fetus died as a result of the
stabbing. The group went to a parking lot of a casino in Dubuque, and after two
of the girls left, the defendant and Alberta drove toward Wisconsin.
The police quickly obtained a description of the defendant’s car and its
license plate number and notified officers in Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin that the
car was involved in a stabbing. At approximately 10 p.m., an hour after the
stabbing, Wisconsin officers made a high risk traffic stop of the defendant’s
vehicle. They ordered the defendant to throw the keys out, to exit the vehicle,
and to get on her knees to be checked for weapons. The defendant was told
several times that if she did not comply with the orders she would be shot. The
defendant was handcuffed and put into the back of a squad car to await the
arrival of Dubuque officers.
An hour later, at 11 p.m., one Dubuque officer
arrived. He was told to “stand by” until superior officers arrived. At 1:45 a.m., the
two superior officers arrived to the scene.
When the superior officers discovered the defendant was handcuffed, they
had them removed and apologized to her. They informed her that her car would
be towed back to Dubuque. They asked her to come with them back to Dubuque
and she agreed. She rode in the back seat of an unmarked police vehicle. She
was not handcuffed and the doors were unlocked. She was questioned in an
interview room at the Dubuque Law Enforcement Center from 2:30 a.m. to
approximately 4:30 a.m. with the door closed.
During the questioning, the
4
defendant gave untruthful information that was used to attack her credibility at
trial.
On September 14, 2005, the defendant was charged by trial information
with first degree murder and non-consensual termination of a human pregnancy.
A jury convicted the defendant of involuntary manslaughter and non-consensual
termination of a human pregnancy.
The defendant appeals, claiming the
convictions must be reversed due to erroneous trial court rulings concerning
Miranda violations, physical restraints on the defendant during trial, hearsay and
unduly prejudicial evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. We consider
each claimed error in turn.
II.
MIRANDA RIGHTS.
Defendant first claims any statements she made during the questioning at
the Dubuque Law Enforcement Center must be suppressed because she was
never read her Miranda rights.
The district court overruled the motion to
suppress finding the defendant was not in custody at the time of questioning and
gave statements voluntarily. Motions to suppress based on Miranda violations
are reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Miranda, 672 N.W.2d 753, 758 (Iowa
2003). We independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances shown by the
record and “‘give deference to the district court’s fact findings due to its
opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses.’” Id. (quoting State v. Turner,
630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001)). However, we are not bound by the trial
court’s findings. State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 271 (Iowa 2006).
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable
to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, promises that “[n]o person . . .
5
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S.
Const. amend. V; Miranda, 672 N.W.2d at 758. This constitutional guarantee
applies when one is subject to “custodial interrogation” by police. Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 706-07
(1966). To safeguard this right, prior to custodial interrogation, a person must be
informed of the right to remain silent, right to obtain or be appointed an attorney,
and that any statements can be used against the person in court. Id. at 478-79,
86 S. Ct. at 1630, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 726. Evidence obtained without giving the
Miranda warnings is inadmissible. Id. at 478-79, 86 S. Ct. at 1630, 16 L. Ed. 2d
at 726.
Waiver of these rights must be voluntary and “‘made with a full
awareness . . . both of the nature of the right being abandoned and the
consequences of the decision to abandon [those rights]’”. State v. Mortley, 532
N.W.2d 498, 502 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (quoting Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412,
421, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 1141, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410, 421 (1986)).
“Custodial interrogation is defined as ‘questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’” Simmons, 714 N.W.2d
at 274 (quoting Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 607). We identify “‘whether a reasonable
person in the [defendant’s] position would understand [herself] to be in custody.’”
State v. Countryman, 572 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Iowa 1997) (quoting State v.
Deases, 518 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Iowa 1994)). We look to all of the circumstances
surrounding the questioning but use the following factors for guidance:
(1) the language used to summon the individual;
(2) the purpose, place, and manner of interrogation;
(3) the extent to which the defendant is confronted with
evidence of her guilt; and
6
(4) whether the defendant is free to leave the place of
questioning.
Id.
The State concedes that the defendant was in custody of the Wisconsin
police officers when they made the high risk traffic stop and kept the defendant
handcuffed in the squad car. However, the State argues that the defendant was
not in custody at the time of the interrogation by the Iowa officers in the Dubuque
Law Enforcement Center. The State urges the defendant was not in custody
because the defendant agreed to return to Dubuque with the officers, she was
not restrained by the Dubuque officers, the interview room was unlocked, she
seemed calm, and exercised her rights to refuse giving consent to search her
vehicle and give a DNA sample. The State argues that even if the defendant
was in custody during the interview, the error was harmless. The district court
found no fifth amendment violation on three grounds including: (1) the defendant
was not in custody as a result of the high risk stop because police are entitled to
use protective measures if reasonable under the circumstances; (2) the
defendant was not in custody during questioning by the Dubuque officers
because, among other things, they made it clear to her that she was not
obligated to return with them to Dubuque and she was not restrained during the
questioning; and (3) the defendant made the statements voluntarily.
After reviewing the principles demanded by Miranda, the guiding factors,
and all of the circumstances surrounding the questioning evidenced by the
record, we find the defendant was subject to custodial interrogation and Miranda
warnings were required. Custody is more likely to exist when the encounter is
initiated by police rather than the suspect. Miranda, 672 N.W.2d at 759. Also,
7
“[t]he Miranda safeguards ‘become applicable as soon as a suspect’s freedom of
action is curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.’”
Id. (quoting
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L. Ed. 2d
317, 335 (1984) (emphasis added)). Even if the record is unclear as to what
language was used, custody can be present if the police “took charge of [the
defendant’s] movement.” Id.
Here, the interaction between the officers and the defendant was
instigated by the police.
Although police must use reasonable protective
measures during high risk stops, there was no risk to the officers once the
defendant was handcuffed and placed in the squad car.
At this point, the
defendant’s freedom of movement was restrained to a degree comparable to that
which occurs during arrest. We are not convinced that the arrival of the Dubuque
officers and their less restrictive treatment of the defendant significantly changed
the nature of the confrontation. The Wisconsin officers testified that they had the
defendant “in custody” and intended to “transfer custody” to the Dubuque
officers.
The Wisconsin officers’ action was in response to the request of
Dubuque officers to stop this particular vehicle because it was involved in a
stabbing. The Dubuque officers’ ignorance of the restraints and apology to the
defendant did not absolve the need for Miranda warnings. “The custody
determination 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.
Knowledge of constitutional
rights may be imputed between state actors. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S.
625, 634, 106 S. Ct. 1404, 1410, 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 641 (1986) (stating that when
8
an accused asserts their right to counsel to one official, Sixth Amendment right to
counsel principals “require that we impute the State’s knowledge from one state
actor to another.”). Moreover, in Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme
Court warned that when a defendant is transferred between authorities, the
second authority should not be allowed to benefit from the first authority’s failure
to inform the defendant of her rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 496-497,
86 S. Ct. at 1639, 16 L. Ed. 2d at 736 (1966).
The restrictive circumstances did not end when the handcuffs were
removed. Although the officers supposedly asked the defendant to accompany
them back to Iowa, she was told she could not leave in her own car. At that late
hour, the defendant’s only available means of transportation was the police car.
The defendant was escorted into the law enforcement center by two officers, and
questioned in an interview room behind closed doors for two hours in the middle
of the night. The defendant was also confronted by evidence of her guilt. The
officers knew the car was involved in the stabbing prior to the stop of the vehicle
and would not allow the defendant to leave in the car or retrieve any items from
the car except for her house key. During questioning at the law center, the
officers told the defendant they already had evidence that she was present when
the stabbing occurred. They asked her directly if she stabbed April Johnson or
knew who did.
The one factor that is unclear is whether the defendant was free to leave
at the time of questioning. The officers testified they told the defendant she was
free to leave. The defendant stated she did not remember if she was told this
before or during questioning but knew she was told she could leave after the
9
questioning. She stated, “I read my statement and it said that they told me that,
so they could have.” Even if we accept the officers’ testimony, we find the other
factors support a finding of custodial interrogation under the facts. The record
shows police efforts were immediately directed to locating the defendant’s
vehicle. Once the vehicle and defendant were located, police attention focused
on securing the defendant for transfer to Dubuque officials. Once the Dubuque
officials arrived, they sought to obtain evidence by impounding the defendant’s
vehicle, returning the defendant to Iowa, and questioning her.
A reasonable
person would not believe they were free to leave given this chain of events.
The defendant’s rights were not waived. Her statements were in response
to questions, not spontaneous.
Also, any written waiver in her statement
appears to have been provided after the incriminating statements were made.
The defendant did not have full awareness of the rights being surrendered and
the consequences when she signed her statement.
III.
HARMLESS ERROR.
The State contends even if there was a Miranda violation, the error was
harmless. Erroneous admission of evidence in violation of a defendant’s Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights is subject to harmless error analysis. State v.
Peterson, 663 N.W.2d 417, 430-31 (Iowa 2003). “The State is required to “prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the
verdict obtained.” Id. We first look to the evidence the jury actually considered
and then weigh “the probative force of that evidence against the probative force
of the erroneously admitted evidence standing alone.”
Id.
“[A] verdict or
conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been
10
affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.” Nguyen v. State,
707 N.W.2d 317, 326 (Iowa 2005). If credibility or corroboration is key to the
verdict, error is not harmless. See Peterson, 663 N.W.2d at 434-35 (explaining
that when the prosecution’s case heavily depends on accomplice testimony that
is best corroborated by defendant’s erroneously admitted statements to police,
the error is not harmless); State v. Anderson, 636 N.W.2d 26, 37-38 (Iowa 2001)
(finding erroneously admitted evidence could not be harmless when physical
evidence was lacking and verdict must have been based on a credibility
determination of defendant and victim). If the erroneously admitted statements
improperly presented a “contradiction of facts that constituted the heart and core
of defendant’s defense,” error cannot be considered harmless. State v. Metz,
636 N.W.2d 94, 99 (Iowa 2001).
Although the jury considered extensive evidence and testimony, we do not
find the evidence overwhelmingly implicated this defendant. No blood or DNA
evidence linked the defendant to the stabbing.
There were four persons
attacking April Johnson at the same time. The defendant testified that Alberta
stabbed April while Alberta testified that the defendant did the stabbing. Multiple
knives were connected to the crime.
There was testimony that one witness
believed multiple people stabbed April yet the autopsy revealed a single stab
wound. The State’s case depended largely on the credibility of the accomplices
and the defendant. The State attacked the defendant’s credibility in their case in
chief and through cross-examination of the defendant. They asked the officers
about how the defendant changed her story during questioning and asked the
defendant why she lied to police. The defense also relied on the jury believing
11
the defendant’s testimony. The statements she gave without being advised of
her Miranda rights were improperly used by the State to establish inconsistencies
in her version of events.
Due to the lack of other evidence implicating the
defendant and the importance of credibility determinations in this case, we
cannot find the error was harmless.
IV.
PHYSICAL RESTRAINT.
Defendant next contends the district court erred in ordering the defendant
to wear a leg restraint during the trial and it prejudiced her case. “The decision to
impose physical restraints upon a defendant during trial lies within the informed
discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear
showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. Wilson, 406 N.W.2d 442, 449 (Iowa
1987). “[A] defendant is entitled to the indicia of innocence in the presence of the
jury” and shackling is to be avoided because it may prejudice the jury against the
defendant. Id. at 448-49. In Wilson, the court distinguished between cases
where the jury observes the defendant in shackles during the entire trial and
cases where the jury briefly sees the defendant shackled inadvertently. Id. at
448. There is inherent prejudice in the first situation and the restraint can only be
used if the State proves the restraints are necessary. Id. at 449. In the second
case, prejudice is not inherent and “the defendant has the burden to show the
incident prejudicially affected the jury or that his ability to present his defense
was impaired as a result of his being seen in shackles.” Id. at 448. In making
the determination whether to restrain a defendant, a court should minimize
prejudice and cite specific facts supporting its decision. Id. at 449-50.
12
In this case, the defendant was not visibly shackled, but was required to
wear a leg brace. She was ordered to wear the leg brace throughout the trial but
was permitted to have the leg brace removed when she testified so abnormal
walking caused by the brace would not be visible to the jury. The brace fit
underneath loose clothing, and was secured above the defendant’s knee and at
the ankle. The brace operated to prevent the defendant from jumping or running
if she were to try to escape. The court did not cite reasons for requiring the
brace during trial except that it was the sheriff’s standard operating procedure
and the court would not interfere with that policy. The State concedes there was
an abuse of discretion because the court did not cite adequate reasons for the
restraint and we agree. We have reversed on other grounds, consequently we
need not decide the prejudice issue.
V.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in numerous rulings on hearsay
testimony.
Most of the statements the defendant complains of concern the
testimony of the investigating officers. The officers testified about statements
others made to them during the investigation. An officer also referred to an
exhibit showing the time line of the investigation.
The State argued the
statements were not offered to prove the truth of the statement but rather were
presented to explain how the investigation proceeded. The trial court allowed the
statements in for this purpose.
We review rulings on hearsay objections for errors at law. State v. Newall,
710 N.W.2d 6, 18 (Iowa 2006).
Erroneously admitted hearsay evidence is
presumed prejudicial unless affirmative proof shows no prejudice was caused.
13
State v. Hildreth, 582 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Iowa 1998). However, if the hearsay
testimony is merely cumulative of other admissible evidence, there is no
prejudice. Id. Hearsay “is a statement, other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(c). Statements may be admissible to
prove the mere fact the declaration was made and “to explain a third party’s
actions taken in response” to the statement. State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439,
442 (Iowa 1984). The statement “must not only tend to explain the responsive
conduct but the conduct itself must be relevant to some aspect of the State’s
case.”
State v. Mitchell, 450 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Iowa 1990).
“Even if the
condition of relevancy is met, such evidence may be excluded if its probative
value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. State v. Edgerly, 571 N.W.2d 25, 29
(Iowa Ct. App. 1997). This type of testimony must be carefully limited to why the
officer took certain action because the jury is likely to misuse the relayed
statement for its truth. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d at 442. We also must search the
record to ensure the State’s real purpose is to show the officer’s response and is
not intended to prove the truth of the statements. State v. Martin, 587 N.W.2d
606, 610 (Iowa 1998).
In analyzing the officer testimony and the record, we find some statements
were properly allowed to explain the investigation and some were impermissible
hearsay and prejudicial. First, the statement concerning attempts to locate the
defendant the day after her initial questioning was limited to investigation
purposes. The officer testified that measures, such as obtaining a warrant and
employing detectives, were necessary to locate the defendant.
Similarly, an
14
officer’s testimony about why officers searched a specific school yard was
properly limited to the scope of the investigation and admissible for this purpose.
The time line exhibit was also generally limited to the steps taken by the
police in response to 911 calls concerning the incident and describing when the
defendant was located in Wisconsin and questioned. The brief portions referring
to when the defendant was at a casino were cumulative and nonprejudicial as the
defendant’s own testimony placed her at the casino during this period.
The defendant claims that an officer should have been permitted to testify
about how close witnesses were to the scene or whether they wore glasses. The
court prohibited this testimony as based on hearsay. Even if this testimony was
admissible, the defendant suffered no prejudice because the particular
eyewitnesses themselves testified to these facts.
The trial court allowed a witness to testify that Alberta told her “[the
defendant] stabbed that girl and I think she’s dead.” According to the record, this
statement would have been made less than an hour after the reported stabbing.
At the time Alberta made the statement, she was scared, crying, and the witness
was trying to calm her down. We agree with the State that this statement falls
within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. An excited utterance
is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Iowa R.
Evid. 5.803(2).
“A lapse of time between a startling event and an excited
utterance does not necessarily foreclose admission of the statement.” State v.
Augustine, 458 N.W.2d 859, 861 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (finding excited utterance
exception applied to eyewitness statement regarding who started a fire over an
15
hour after the incident). Here, Alberta was clearly still experiencing the trauma of
the situation as multiple witnesses, including the defendant, testified Alberta was
crying after the incident and persons were trying to console her. There was no
error in admitting this statement.
There are two statements that were erroneously admitted hearsay that
prejudiced the defendant. First, an officer was asked to testify what he learned
which caused him to make certain assignments during the evening of the
stabbing and the court allowed the answer after the state argued it was not being
offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The officer’s challenged answer was:
A vehicle had pulled up, four females exited the vehicle,
approached April Johnson who was sitting on some steps and
talking to some other people in the 1500 block of Bluff Street. The
four girls approached April Johnson, a brief altercation, physical
altercation took place. They fell to the ground. The four got up,
went back to the vehicle, the vehicle left. A few moments later April
Johnson collapsed. She was bleeding from the left side of her
chest.
This statement does not help explain the officer’s subsequent conduct and
goes beyond providing information about steps the officers took during the
investigation. This statement does little to explain the investigation, and could be
used improperly by the jury as “an ‘official version’ of the incident much to [the
defendant’s] prejudice” State v. Mount, 422 N.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Iowa 1988)
(overruled on other grounds by State v. Royer, 436 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa 1989))
(explaining how an officer’s repetition of a victim’s account of a crime will likely be
used by the jury for its truth). Although this statement is cumulative of other
eyewitness testimony, we find the statement was not directed to or limited to
explaining officer response and is inadmissible hearsay.
16
The final statement challenged by the defendant as hearsay involves
testimony by a witness about a telephone conversation. The witness received a
call the night of the incident pertaining to the defendant’s children. The witness
was asked, “[w]hat about this phone call that you received made you think you
needed to take care of the kids or check on the kids?” The witness answered, “I
don’t remember the exact words but a friend of mine called and said that a friend
stated that something had happened.” The State argued this was not offered for
the truth of the matter asserted and the trial court allowed the statement for this
purpose. We agree this statement could be used, not for its truth, but to explain
the witness’s response. However, from a careful review of the record, it appears
this was not the true purpose sought by the State. The record shows that even
after the witness answered this question, the State continued to repeatedly ask
about the content of the call even after the witness explained her response and
reaction to the call. In this instance, the State’s true purpose from the record
appears to be an attempt to offer hearsay statements for their truth and
admission of the statement was error.
VI.
AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS.
Defendant next contends the district court erred by allowing the State to
admit autopsy photographs of the victim. The photographs admitted consisted of
a picture of April’s face with a head wound, a picture of the stab wound after it
had been cleaned, and two photographs of April’s dissected heart. The decision
to admit photographs lies with the trial court and will only be reversed if there is
an abuse of discretion. State v. Aswegan, 331 N.W.2d 93, 97 (Iowa 1983). The
photographs are admissible if they are relevant and their probative value is not
17
outweighed by potential prejudice. State v. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d 25, 33 (Iowa
1983).
In a murder case, pictures of wounds may be used to help the jury
determine whether the death occurred intentionally or accidentally.
State v.
Clark, 325 N.W.2d 381, 384 (Iowa 1982). This is so even if the manner of death
is not in dispute. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d at 33. The court did not abuse its discretion
in admitting the photographs in this case. The photographs showed the injuries
April suffered and could be used to help determine whether the death was
intentional. The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs.
VII.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Defendant last contends counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a
jury instruction listing the elements of nonconsensual termination of a human
pregnancy.
There are two classifications of this crime.
If a pregnancy is
terminated during the commission of a forcible felony, it is a class B felony. Iowa
Code § 707.8(1). If a pregnancy is terminated during a non-forcible felony or
during a felonious assault, it is a class C felony. Iowa Code § 707.8(2). This
distinction was not made in the jury instruction. Therefore, it was unclear from
the jury instruction whether the jury’s guilty verdict under this section was based
on a forcible or nonforcible felony. Double jeopardy protections allow defendants
to only be subsequently tried on the lesser-included charge if they have been
acquitted of the greater charge. State v. Burgess, 639 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Iowa
2001).
Thus, this issue should not arise again for the jury should only be
instructed as to section 707.8(2).
18
VIII.
CONCLUSION.
We reverse the defendant’s convictions and remand for trial on violation of
sections 707.5(1) and 707.8(2), because the defendant’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination was violated when she was not read Miranda
warnings prior to custodial interrogation.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.