March 1, 2013 at 5:22 p.m.
State Supreme Court hears oral argument in baby death case
State Supreme Court hears oral argument in baby death case
For more than an hour justices asked attorneys Andrew Hinkel (arguing on behalf of defendant Matthew Lonkoski) and Warren D. Weinstein (arguing for the state) questions about the parameters of custody and what constitutes interrogation.
The session was broadcast across the state on the Wisconsin Eye network and is available in audio and video form on the network's website.
Oral argument is the last step before the court issues a ruling on the appeal.
Both attorneys have previously filed briefs on the legal arguments surrounding the death of Peyton Lonkoski and the subsequent conviction of her father.
Matthew Lonkoski, 25, was convicted back in March 2010 of recklessly causing great harm to a child and neglecting a child resulting in death.
Police accused Lonkoski of failing to take 10-month-old Peyton Marie to a hospital after she accidentally ingested a morphine pill.
The baby was found dead in her bed the morning of May 4, 2009, just a day after her family moved from Michigan into an apartment in the town of Pelican.
Lonkoski and the child's mother, Amanda Bodoh, were charged criminally after toxicology results confirmed there were large amounts of morphine in the baby's blood and urine. Investigators eventually learned the child ingested a morphine tablet while she was in Lonkoski's care. According to court testimony, the child grabbed the 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. In that case, the state argued Bodoh neglected her daughter by leaving her in the care of people she knew were using drugs.
Lonkoski agreed to a plea deal and is serving a 12-year prison sentence.
He has appealed his conviction on the grounds investigators illegally continued to interrogate him 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 the appeals court decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case.
Central to the case is an interview conducted at the Oneida County Sheriff's Office days after Peyton died.
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. Detective Sara Gardner and Lt. Jim Wood (who has since retired) interviewed Lonkoski, with Lonkoski sitting in the corner furthest from the door of the interview room.
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 Mr. 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: OK.
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 - the drug that killed Peyton - around the time of Peyton's death. Lonkoski was again interrogated four days later and made more incriminating statements.
Lonkoski has insisted he was pressured to continue speaking to police after he had asked for an attorney and that's the argument defense counsel Hinkel made to the state Supreme Court during Monday's oral argument.
"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," Hinkel 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 (law) 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."
Hinkel also argued that Lonkoski was in custody when he asked for an attorney even though approximately 30 minutes before he asked for a lawyer Wood and Gardner stated he was not under arrest.
"The conversation had taken quite a turn," Hinkel said, noting that the officers went from asking Lonkoski how he was doing to telling him that the autopsy report showed an overdose.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson stated one of the key questions for the court to answer is who initiated the conversation that took place after Lonkoski's statement about wanting an attorney.
"The question is who initiated the second conversation. If it was the state, then you've got a problem, assuming you have custody. If it was the defendant, then the state's home free," she said.
Justice Michael Gableman read from the transcript of the interview and challenged Hinkel to tell him when the conversation between Lonkoski and the two investigators changed from a voluntary interview to an interrogation.
"At one point, in your opinion, was this conversation transformed from a voluntary interview to a custodial interrogation?" he asked.
Hinkel responded that the transformation happened when the police "effectively accused" Lonkoski of being responsible for Peyton's death.
Gableman appeared skeptical of that argument.
"Because the police, who are investigating the death of a child, start asking specific questions about how the death came about, all of a sudden that's transferred into a custodial interrogation?" he asked.
"I think it's accusations couched as questions," Hinkel responded, noting that the police communicating their suspicions is a factor to be considered when determining whether a reasonable person would feel free to end an interview with investigators and leave.
"I think sitting in that room Mr. Lonkoski becomes aware, these guys think I did it and they are telling me that they have proof that I did it. Is he is going to be allowed to leave that room? He doesn't think so, that's why he asks if he is under arrest and it turns out he's right, the officer says 'You are now (under arrest),'" Hinkel said.
Hinkel went on to argue suspects should be allowed to invoke their right to attorney, and have it be honored, when a custodial interrogation is imminent or impending.
"Then the rule becomes anytime someone confesses, it should be suppressed," noted Justice Annette Ziegler.
"It's the request for an attorney that needs to be honored," responded Hinkel.
Given his chance to address the court, Weinstein argued the defense's proposed "imminent custody" rule is unworkable.
"The problem with this imminent custody approach, it seems to me, is nobody seems to know when it occurs and the only objective criteria is the length of time between the assertion (of the right to an attorney) and the arrest which I think can be manipulated by both parties," he said.
When Abrahamson questioned Weinstein as to whether Lonkoski could have left the room when he became uncomfortable with the officers' questions, the attorney argued he could have.
"The doors weren't locked, I don't see any reason he couldn't," Weinstein replied.
Weinstein also argued Lonkoski was not in custody until the moment he asked whether he was under arrest and was not coerced into reinitiating the conversation.
The session ended with Abrahamson remarking on the complexity of cases involving Miranda rights.
It's likely the court will not issue a ruling for several months.
Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.