State v. Patricelli
1984 Minn. LEXIS 1496, 357 N.W.2d 89 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent inculpatory statement is not considered the tainted fruit of a prior potentially coerced confession if it is obtained after a significant temporal break, by a different interrogator, after fresh Miranda warnings, and concerns a distinct offense. Furthermore, a defendant serving concurrent sentences is entitled to credit against both sentences for pretrial jail time spent due to a 'hold' related to each offense.
Facts:
- On January 2, 1982, Brian Hanson committed an armed robbery of the Sunrise Bakery in Mahtomedi, with Defendant Patricelli driving the getaway car.
- Patricelli shared an apartment with Hanson and was seen with a small gun with Hanson in November 1981; Patricelli's girlfriend, Catherine Murphy, worked at the Sunrise Bakery.
- On January 17, 1982, Chisago and Washington County deputy sheriffs lawfully arrested Patricelli in Mahtomedi, Washington County.
- Officer Kaske of the Chisago County Sheriff's Office questioned Patricelli from 10:30 p.m. until 2-2:30 a.m. about a Chisago County offense, during which Patricelli confessed, stating he was tired, hungry, and unwell, and Kaske 'might have said' Patricelli would be in jail for a long time if he did not cooperate.
- Approximately 12 hours after Officer Kaske completed his interrogation, Washington County Investigator Jack Nelson questioned Patricelli about the Washington County (bakery) robbery.
- Officer Nelson gave Patricelli Miranda warnings before his interrogation.
- Patricelli was 19 years old at the time, had a tenth-grade education, and had been arrested twice before.
- Patricelli spent time in jail in Chisago County from January 29 through April 22, 1982, due to a Washington County 'hold' and a $20,000 bail set for the Washington County charge, which led his attorney not to argue for a reduction in Chisago County bail.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Patricelli was found guilty by a district court jury of aiding and abetting aggravated robbery (the Washington County offense).
- The Chisago County District Court had initially ruled Patricelli's arrest in Chisago County (for a separate offense) to be illegal, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed that ruling in State v. Patricelli, 324 N.W.2d 351 (Minn.1982).
- An omnibus hearing in Patricelli's Washington County case was held while the state's pretrial appeal was pending in the Chisago County prosecution.
- The trial court sentenced Patricelli to an executed prison term of 54 months, which was later reduced to 36 months.
- Patricelli appealed his conviction, seeking outright reversal for insufficient evidence, a new trial for erroneous suppression of an inculpatory statement, or a reduction of his sentence and credit for jail time.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Should a subsequent inculpatory statement be suppressed as the tainted fruit of a prior potentially coerced confession when the subsequent statement was obtained by a different officer, after a significant time interval, fresh Miranda warnings, and concerned a separate offense? 2. Is a defendant entitled to credit for pretrial jail time against concurrent sentences for separate offenses when a 'hold' related to one offense contributed to the defendant's continued detention for both?
Opinions:
Majority - Todd, Justice
1. No, the subsequent inculpatory statement made by Patricelli to Officer Nelson does not need to be suppressed as the tainted fruit of the prior potentially coerced confession. The court determined that Officer Nelson's interrogation regarding the Washington County robbery was sufficiently attenuated from Officer Kaske's earlier questioning about the Chisago County offense. There was a 12-hour interval between the interrogations, during which Patricelli had an opportunity to sleep and eat. Officer Nelson, who was not present during the prior interrogation, provided fresh Miranda warnings. Patricelli did not invoke his right to silence or counsel, merely expressing some initial reluctance that Officer Nelson properly overcame by encouraging him to talk. Crucially, the 'cat was not out of the bag' regarding the Washington County offense when Nelson began his questioning. The court applied a totality of the circumstances test to assess the voluntariness of the statement, concluding that Nelson's interrogation, viewed in isolation, did not render the statement involuntary or coerced. 2. Yes, Patricelli is entitled to apply pretrial jail time against both of his concurrent sentences. Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subd. 4(B) states that a defendant is entitled to credit for 'all time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident for which sentence is imposed.' The record indicates that Patricelli was in jail from January 29 through April 22 'in connection with' the Washington County offense because a 'hold' was placed on him by Washington County, and the $20,000 bail for that charge prevented his attorney from attempting to reduce the Chisago County bail. Since Patricelli's sentences are concurrent, crediting the jail time against both avoids unfairly punishing him for the state's delay in seeking his arraignment and does not result in an unfair double credit, which would occur with consecutive sentences.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial guidance on the application of the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, particularly in the context of successive confessions obtained for different offenses. It clarifies that a significant break in time, new Miranda warnings, and a different interrogator can attenuate the taint of a prior potentially coerced statement, emphasizing that the 'cat out of the bag' theory is limited to the specific offense confessed. Furthermore, the decision establishes a fair standard for applying pretrial jail credit, ensuring that defendants with concurrent sentences are not disadvantaged by 'holds' or prosecutorial delays that lead to prolonged detention related to multiple charges.
