Trial in overdose death case set for April

A four-day jury trial has been scheduled for early April in the case of a 25-year-old Rhinelander woman charged in connection with the overdose death of a 29-year-old Town of Pelican man back in 2022.

The defendant, Jasmine Lariviere, was set to stand trial in mid-July but a witness availability issue prompted a delay. Then a new judge had to be assigned when interim circuit judge Mary Roth Burns left office on July 31. 

Burns was replaced by Judge Michael Schiek, the winner of the April election to replace Judge Patrick O’Melia who retired in the summer of 2022. However, because Schiek was serving as district attorney when Lariviere was charged, he cannot preside over the trial. As a result, the case was assigned to Vilas County circuit judge Daniel Overbey.

The judicial transfer took place in August but Lariviere was not required to return to court until Thursday morning when a status conference was held.

The hearing was spent entirely on scheduling, as the parties indicated no settlement has been reached.

Assistant district attorney Mary Sowinski advised the court that following conversations with defense counsel Antoni Apollo it was her understanding the defense does not intend to file additional motions.

In July, before Burns left office, the defense had sought to suppress a statement Lariviere made to police following a May 2022 traffic stop and asked to be allowed to suggest to the jury that two other people may have given Kyle Polinski the drugs that ended his life on April 18, 2022.

Lariviere and her codefendant, Malik I. Jones, 24, were charged with reckless homicide, as party to the crime, in September of 2022 after toxicology results showed Polinski died from fentanyl toxicity. 

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid analgesic 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine.

According to the complaint and prior court testimony, shortly after Polinski died, police received information indicating a crime may have occurred and that Jones and Lariviere might have been involved. Law enforcement later obtained a warrant to place a GPS device on the couple’s vehicle and track their movements. 

The two were arrested in early May 2022 following a traffic stop. At the time, they were under bond and/or probation conditions prohibiting them from having any contact.

Various amounts and types of illicit substances were found in the vehicle during the traffic stop, including pills located inside Lariviere’s purse. 

According to the complaints, the pills matched the description of the pill Lariviere and Jones later told police they delivered to Polinski. The pills were sent to the state crime lab for testing and came back positive for the presence of fentanyl, according to the complaint. 

According to testimony during Jones’ preliminary hearing, Jones and Lariviere purchased what they were told were Percocet pills from a contact outside of the area and traveled to Oneida County to deliver one of the pills to Polinski.

The police interviews indicate Jones and Lariviere believed the pills were Percocet but were aware that there were “fake Percocet” pills circulating at the time. 

Earlier this year, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jones pled guilty to first-degree reckless homicide-drug delivery (as party to the crime) as well as possession of narcotics and schedule IV drugs with intent to deliver. He is serving a 3 1/2 year prison sentence to be followed by eight years extended supervision.

As part of the plea agreement, he has agreed to testify truthfully should Lariviere’s case go to trial.

The crux of the defense argument for suppression of Lariviere’s statement to police was that the investigators knew she had an attorney representing her on another criminal matter, a person she referenced but did not specifically ask for during the police interview, according to a recording of the interview played during the July motion hearing.

The defense also noted that Lariviere was arrested at gunpoint during a traffic stop, was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the interview and didn’t fully understand her rights with respect to representation by counsel.

Based on the “totality of the circumstances” Apollo argued the statement was not voluntary and should be suppressed.

On behalf of the state, Sowinski argued that Lariviere was properly read her Miranda rights and stressed that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment “only attaches to the charged offenses.”

“The detective sergeant who was conducting the interview made it very clear that it was a lawyer who did not represent her on the particular charges that she was discussing in the interview,” the prosecutor noted..

“Furthermore, they made it very clear that it was up to her to decide what questions to answer, whether to ask for an attorney at any time, and when to end the interview.”

Reading from the transcript, she quoted one of the investigator’s exact words: “Really, how the conversation progresses and where it goes and when it ends is really in your court,” the officer told Lariviere.

Burns ultimately denied the suppression motion, noting that investigators were “thorough” in reciting the defendant’s rights and making it clear that she could end interview or contact her attorney at any time. 

The judge also noted that it appeared Lariviere was comfortable in the interview room and made a knowing decision to speak with the investigators.

“Certainly, she did mention her attorney before she was read her Miranda rights but I thought that law enforcement was very thorough in explaining to her that she could ask for an attorney or stop the questioning at any point if she felt uncomfortable,” the judge said, adding that “law enforcement gave her multiple chances to say she needed her attorney or wanted to call him...”

Burns also denied the defense request to be allowed to argue to the jury that two other people, associates of Polinski, might have delivered the substance that ended his life.

In making his argument, Apollo referenced a non-fatal fentanyl-related overdose that took place in Oneida County a week before Polinski died that involved a “blue in color” substance. A blue substance was also found at the scene of Polinski’s death, he noted.

He also referenced a statement made by another of Polinski’s associates who claimed that Polinski said he had traveled to another state to try to get drugs from a contact who had moved away from this area.

Sowinski strongly objected to the defense’s attempts to tie these other people to Polinski’s death. 

One of the individuals was actually in jail the week before Polinski died, she stressed, while the other resides in a state some distance from Wisconsin and there’s no evidence connecting that individual to Polinski in the days before his death.

Sowinski called the defense’s attempts to point to these others individuals as potential third-party perpetrators as “rank speculation” that would only confuse the jury. 

Burns agreed with the state, though she noted that if the incarcerated individual had actually been free during the relevant timeframe, she likely would have granted the motion. 

“The connection with (the incarcerated individual) is too distant in time because he was locked up,” she said, adding that there is no actual evidence tying the person who resides in another state to Polinski. 

Lariviere remains free on bond pending the trial. 

If convicted of reckless homicide, she faces a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison. 

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].