April 10, 2013 at 5:35 p.m.
State Supreme Court denies appeal in baby death case
State Supreme Court denies appeal in baby death case
By By: Heather Schaefer-
The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 26-page opinion Tuesday denying Matthew Lonkoski's appeal in a case involving the definition of police custody.
Lonkoski had argued he was in custody, or about to be, when Oneida County detectives illegally continued to interrogate him after he asked for an attorney.
The justices flatly rejected the argument.
In an opinion authored by Justice N. Patrick Crooks, the court ruled Lonkoski, now 25, was not in police custody when he asked for an attorney and therefore county investigators were not required to stop interrogating him.
When a person is not in police custody, the protections associated with the Miranda rule do not apply, the court noted.
A person is in "custody" if under the totality of the circumstances "a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview and leave the scene," the opinion states.
To answer the question of whether Lonkoski was in custody at the moment he asked for an attorney, the court considered a number of factors including that Lonkoski was not put under arrest during the time frame in question and there were no constraints put on his freedom of movement.
"Lonkoski came to the sheriff's department without being asked and voluntarily submitted to questioning by law enforcement officers. Although he was questioned in a small room within a jail by two officers with the door closed, the circuit court found that it was a typical interrogation setting locked to ingress by individuals but not for egress; he was never restrained in any way; and the door was opened more than once by people entering or exiting. In fact, on one occasion when the officers left the room, one of the officers asked Lonkoski whether he preferred the door to the interrogation room to be open or shut.
"Furthermore, Lonkoski was told that he was not under arrest and that the officers were not accusing him. In the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Lonkoski's position at the time he stated he wanted an attorney would believe that he or she was 'free to terminate the interview and leave the scene,'" Crooks wrote.
Lonkoski filed the appeal after pleading guilty to recklessly causing great bodily harm and neglecting a child resulting in death.
The state had accused him of failing to take his 10-month-old daughter, Peyton Marie, to a hospital after she accidentally ingested a morphine pill while in his care.
The baby was found dead in her bed the morning of May 4, 2009, just a day after her family moved into an apartment in the town of Pelican.
Lonkoski and Peyton's mother, Amanda Bodoh, were charged after toxicology results confirmed there were large amounts of morphine in their child's blood and urine. According to court testimony, the child grabbed a morphine pill off a table while Lonkoski was playing video games and swallowed it. Lonkoski apparently attempted to get the pill out of her mouth but was unsuccessful. After realizing the pill had been swallowed, Lonkoski allegedly gave the child a bottle of milk and went back to playing video games. He later told authorities he didn't take the child to the hospital because he didn't have legal custody and was worried Bodoh would "kick his ass."
Bodoh was acquitted of child neglect resulting in death following a jury trial in January 2010. The state had argued Bodoh neglected her daughter by leaving her in the care of people she knew were using drugs but a jury was unswayed.
Lonkoski agreed to a plea deal in March 2010 and is serving a 12-year prison sentence.
Following his conviction, Lonkoski filed an appeal arguing statements he made to Lt. Jim Wood (who has since retired) and Det. Sgt. Sara Gardner should have been suppressed because the two officers continued to interrogate him while he was in custody and after he asked for an attorney.
The Third District Court of Appeals in Wausau denied the appeal, finding that Lonkoski voluntarily decided to reinitiate a conversation with investigators after initially asking for an attorney.
Lonkoski appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court which heard oral argument on the case Feb. 25.
Central to the case is an interview conducted at the Oneida County Sheriff's Office on May 22, 2009.
According to the Supreme Court summary of the case, detectives asked Bodoh to come to the sheriff's department for an interview. Lonkoski drove her to the interview and waited in the lobby while she was interviewed. After speaking with Bodoh, the officers sent her to another room and brought Lonkoski into the interview room for an interview that was video recorded.
Wood informed Lonkoski that he was not under arrest. He stated that he had closed the door to the interview room so other people could not hear the interview. For about the first half-hour, the detectives and Lonkoski talked about events since Peyton's death. Then Wood told Lonkoski that an autopsy showed that Peyton died of a morphine overdose. Lonkoski asked the detectives if he was being accused of giving his daughter morphine.
The following exchange then occurred:
Mr. Lonkoski: I want a lawyer. I want a lawyer now. This is (expletive).
Lt. Wood: Okay.
Mr. Lonkoski: I would never do that to my kid, ever. I wasn't even at the apartment at all except at night. Why are you guys accusing me?
Lt. Wood: I didn't accuse you.
Det. Gardner: We were just asking.
Mr. Lonkoski: There is this is is is is is is is is insane.
Lt. Wood: I have to stop talking to you though 'cause you said you wanted a lawyer.
Mr. Lonkoski: Am I under arrest?
Lt. Wood: You are now.
Mr. Lonkoski: Then I'll talk to you without a lawyer... I, I don't want to go to jail...
Shortly after this exchange, Lonkoski was escorted from the room to smoke a cigarette and use the bathroom. When Lonkoski, Gardner, and Wood returned to the room, Wood read Lonkoski his Miranda rights and Lonkoski agreed to answer further questions. Over approximately two additional hours of questioning, Lonkoski made incriminating statements; specifically, that he and a friend had used morphine around the time of Peyton's death. Lonkoski was again interrogated four days later and made more incriminating statements.
During oral argument, defense counsel Hinkel claimed Lonkoski was illegally pressured to continue speaking to police after he had asked for an attorney.
"I think if you take a realistic look at what happened in that room at the Oneida County Sheriff's Department, you'll come to two conclusions," he said. "First, that when Mr. Lonkoski is sitting in that little room with two officers implying that they have evidence and can show that he is responsible for the overdose death of his infant daughter, he is being subjected to the pressures with which (the) Miranda (rule) concerns itself. Second, when he says he wants a lawyer, and asks if he is under arrest, and the response is "Well, you are now," he is further being pressured to speak. And when he capitulates to that pressure, and asks to talk more in order to avoid jail, he is not reinitiating an interrogation of his own volition. He is simply responding to the pressure that the police have placed on him."
The court, however, determined Lonkoski could have simply walked out the door and the officers did nothing wrong when they took him up on his offer to continue the interview.
"We conclude that Lonkoski was not in custody when he asked for an attorney. Because his statement about wanting an attorney was not made during a custodial interrogation, Miranda's rule requiring that the interrogation cease upon a request for an attorney does not apply, and there is no constitutional violation and no bar to using his subsequent statements," the court said.
Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.