William J. Cuozzo, s/k/a William Jay Cuozzo v. CW ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Senior Judge Hodges
Argued by teleconference
WILLIAM J. CUOZZO, S/K/A
WILLIAM JAY CUOZZO
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1843-98-2 JUDGE ROBERT P. FRANK
AUGUST 15, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
John F. Daffron, Jr., Judge
Thomas P. Collins (Eck, Collins & Marstiller,
on brief), for appellant.
Kathleen B. Martin, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
William J. Cuozzo (appellant) appeals two convictions for
taking indecent liberties with children pursuant to Code
§ 18.2-370 and three misdemeanor convictions for making obscene
or threatening phone calls after a bench trial. On appeal,
appellant contends the trial court erred in: 1) denying his
motion to suppress, 2) finding the evidence sufficient under
Code § 18.2-370 to convict appellant on the Kida charge, and 3)
failing to exclude witnesses and permitting evidence of
unadjudicated criminal conduct at sentencing. We reverse and
remand appellant's convictions.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
I. BACKGROUND
During September and October of 1996, appellant allegedly
made phone calls to five children between seven and eleven years
of age. He allegedly asked the children to perform various
sexual acts and, on some occasions, threatened harm to the
children or their parents if they did not comply with his
requests.
On October 28, 1996, appellant was incarcerated in the
Hanover County Jail on other charges. Detective Galen Hartless
of the Chesterfield County Police Department advised appellant
of his Miranda rights and interviewed appellant in the jail as
part of the investigation of the phone calls.
On November 13, 1996, Detective Hartless again interviewed
appellant in the Hanover County Jail. The detective was
accompanied by Investigator Schwartz of the Hanover County
Sheriff's Department. Detective Hartless advised appellant of
his Miranda rights, and appellant signed a Miranda Right Form
acknowledging that he understood his rights. According to the
transcript of the taped interview, the following exchange
occurred at the beginning of the interview:
HARTLESS: You're incarcerated, of course
you know that. I know you know your rights,
but I'm gonna read 'em to you again. It's
eleven-thirteen-ninety-six, approximately
ten-forty-five p.m. I'm Detective G.B.
Hartless, Investigator Bob Schwartz, Hanover
County Sheriff's Department and also present
is Mister William Jay Cuozzo. Mister
Cuozzo, you have the right to remain silent
- 2 -
and make no statement to me and your silence
will be guarded by the police. Any
statement you make without a lawyer can be
used against you. You have the right to the
presence of a lawyer durin' this or any
future interview the police might have with
you. The lawyer be [sic] one of your
choosin' which you hire or if you do not
have money to hire a lawyer, the court will
appoint one for you. Do you understand your
rights? Can you initial (inaudible)
formality. Just want to make sure you're
reminded of it. Initial that for me.
HARTLESS: Let me explain some things to you
(bell ringing) (inaudible). I just want you
to listen, ok, then maybe we can talk (bell
ringing) (inaudible) ringing'll go off.
Now, you know what I'm investigatin' as we
talked before if you remember, ok. Now, in
this investigation, I've found out a lot of
things about you Mister Cuozzo, and some of
the things are positive. Some of the things
are negative. Ok? The people at Bensley
Athletic Association think very highly of
you and I think Bensley is . . . was a place
that needed some input and needed some
organization and I think you did that. But
there are some other problems we need to
deal with. Ok? Um, lookin' at your
background, you were very candid with Mister
Sch . . . with Bob here when he interviewed
you and you said you needed help and
supposedly . . . and I understand the thing
with money, I don't know if was [sic] money
causin' problems for sure and it's court
ordered and maybe, you know, the state ought
to be payin' for it to make you a productive
member of society.
SCHWARTZ: (inaudible).
HARTLESS: But that didn't happen and we're
here now, and I'm tellin' you when I leave
here, I'm goin' to the Commonwealth Attorney
in Chesterfield. Ok?
[APPELLANT]: I want to talk to my attorney
first.
- 3 -
HARTLESS: Well, let me finish. Alright. I
want you to know where you stand, and you
can do that. That's entirely up to you.
[APPELLANT]: I just want to make a call to
him first before (inaudible).
HARTLESS: Well, I don't have any . . . I'm
not arrestin' you now. Ok? I don't have
any indictments, don't have any arrest
warrants.
The exchange continued, and then, the officers allowed
appellant to telephone his attorney. Immediately prior to
calling his attorney, appellant said, "I just got to ask him
somethin'." Appellant called the attorney's office, but the
attorney was unavailable. Then, the following exchange
occurred:
HARTLESS: Did they say when your attorney
would be back?
[APPELLANT]: Nah, they thought he was in
court.
HARTLESS: Ok we can continue to talk, or
you know, remember you said you wanted to
talk to your attorney.
[APPELLANT]: Well, I do 'cause I asked him
about . . . ask Randy (sounds as if
[appellant is] crying) again.
SCHWARTZ: Who is Randy?
The interview continued, and appellant made incriminating
statements about the telephone calls to the children. He
admitted dialing the numbers for two of the calls but denied
talking to the children. Detective Hartless then raised the
issue of counsel:
- 4 -
HARTLESS: You want to try callin' your
attorney again and ask him that question?
[APPELLANT]: No. I was gonna ask him about
Randy.
HARTLESS: Ok. You want to continue talking
without your attorney.
[APPELLANT]: (Implication yes).
Detective Hartless testified at trial that appellant
implied his willingness to continue without an attorney by
shaking his head up and down.
On November 22, 1996, appellant contacted Detective
Hartless and indicated that he wanted to speak with the
detective. By this date, appellant had been served with an
indictment of the charges against him relating to the telephone
calls. The detective opened a third interview:
HARTLESS: Ah, November Twenty Second,
Nineteen Ninety Six and it's Ten Fifteen
P.M., and you wanted me to come back and
speak to you, is that right?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
HARTLESS: Okay, do I need to read you your
rights again? Do you know 'em?
[APPELLANT]: Naw.
HARTLESS: Since we've done been through two
times before, okay, you get your indictment
served on you yet, from Chesterfield?
At trial, appellant moved to suppress the statements
obtained during the November 13, 1996 and November 22, 1996
interviews. Appellant argued that he invoked his rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by stating during the
- 5 -
November 13 interview, "I want to talk to my lawyer." Appellant
argued that the statements were made without access to counsel
and were not voluntary. The trial judge denied the motion,
finding appellant effectively waived his right to counsel during
the interview.
II. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in: 1) denying his
motion to suppress, 2) finding the evidence sufficient to
support his conviction under Code § 18.2-370 on the Kida charge,
and 3) failing to exclude witnesses and allowing evidence of
unadjudicated crimes at sentencing. We reverse the convictions
and remand for further proceedings.
A. THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Appellant argues that his statements of November 13, 1996,
and November 22, 1996, to Detective Hartless should have been
suppressed as violative of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
Appellant argues that the November 13 interview violated the
rule in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). Appellant
contends the information obtained during the November 22
interview was tainted by the illegally obtained information on
November 13 and, therefore, was inadmissible. Further,
appellant argues that his statements on November 22 were made in
an attempt to clarify the incriminating statements that he made
on November 13. Finally, appellant argues he should have been
- 6 -
re-advised of his Miranda rights prior to the November 22
interview.
In order to insure that the Fifth
Amendment right against compulsory self-
incrimination is protected during the
custodial interrogation of criminal
suspects, the United States Supreme Court
established a series of "procedural
safeguards" that law enforcement authorities
must adhere to when interviewing suspects in
their custody. See Davis v. United States,
512 U.S. 452, 457, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 2354,
129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (citing Michigan v.
Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 443-44, 94 S. Ct.
2357, 2363-64, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974)); see
also Mier v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 827,
831, 407 S.E.2d 342, 344-45 (1991).
Compliance with these procedures is a
"prerequisite[ ] to the admissibility of any
statement made by a defendant" during
custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S.
at 476, 86 S. Ct. at 1629; see also Goodwin
v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252, 349
S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).
Quinn v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 702, 709-10, 492 S.E.2d 470,
474 (1997).
In order to "prevent police from
badgering a defendant into waiving his
previously asserted Miranda rights" and to
"protect the suspect's 'desire to deal with
the police only through counsel,'" the
United States Supreme Court established the
"Edwards rule" as a "second layer of
prophylaxis for the Miranda right to
counsel." See Davis, 512 U.S. at 458, 114
S. Ct. at 2355; McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501
U.S. 171, 176, 178, 111 S. Ct. 2204, 2208,
2209, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991); Michigan v.
Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350, 110 S. Ct. 1176,
1180, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990).
Id. at 710-11, 492 S.E.2d at 474-75.
- 7 -
Under Edwards, "once the defendant invokes his Miranda
right to counsel, all police-initiated interrogation regarding
any criminal investigation must cease unless the defendant's
counsel is present at the time of questioning." Id. at 711, 492
S.E.2d at 475 (citations omitted).
The determination of inadmissibility under Edwards involves
application of a three-part test. See id. at 712, 492 S.E.2d at
475.
First, the trial court "must determine
whether the accused actually invoked his
right to counsel" and whether the defendant
remained in continuous custody from the time
he or she invoked this right to the time of
the statement. Second, if the accused has
invoked his or her right to counsel and has
remained in continuous custody, the
statement is inadmissible unless the trial
court finds that the statement was made at a
meeting with the police that was initiated
by the defendant or attended by his lawyer.
Third, if the first two parts of the inquiry
are met, the trial court may admit the
statement if it determines that the
defendant thereafter "knowingly and
intelligently waived the right he had
invoked."
Id. at 712, 492 S.E.2d at 475 (citations omitted).
In Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1045 (1983), the
United States Supreme Court held that the defendant, who had
previously invoked his right to counsel, initiated further
conversation with the police by asking, "'Well, what is going to
happen to me now?'" The Court wrote:
While we doubt that it would be desirable to
build a superstructure of legal refinements
- 8 -
around the word "initiate" in this context,
there are undoubtedly situations where a
bare inquiry by either a defendant or by a
police officer should not be held to
"initiate" any conversation or dialogue.
There are some inquiries, such as a request
for a drink of water or a request to use a
telephone that are so routine that they
cannot be fairly said to represent a desire
on the part of an accused to open up a more
generalized discussion relating directly or
indirectly to the investigation. Such
inquiries or statements, by either an
accused or police officer, relating to
routine incidents of the custodial
relationship, will not generally "initiate"
a conversation in the sense in which that
word was used in Edwards.
Id. The Court, however, held that the defendant's question
"evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion
about the investigation; it was not merely a necessary inquiry
arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship."
Id. at 1045-46.
When a motion to suppress is reviewed
on appeal, the burden is on the appellant to
show that the ruling, when the evidence is
considered in the light most favorable to
the Commonwealth, constituted reversible
error. See Fore v. Commonwealth, 220 Va.
1007, 1010, 265 S.E.2d 729, 731, cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 1017, 101 S. Ct. 579, 66
L.Ed.2d 477 (1980). We review the trial
court's findings of historical fact only for
"clear error," but we review de novo the
trial court's application of defined legal
standards, such as "reasonable suspicion"
and "custodial interrogation," to the
particular facts of a case. See Shears v.
Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 394, 398, 477
S.E.2d 309, 311 (1996); see also Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 700, 116 S. Ct.
1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).
- 9 -
Ford v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 249, 255, 503 S.E.2d 803, 805
(1998).
In this case, we find that appellant clearly invoked his
right to counsel at the November 13, 1996 interview when he
stated, "I want to talk to my attorney first." We also find
that appellant was in continuous custody from the time he
invoked his right to counsel to the time that he made the
incriminating statements about the telephone calls.
The Commonwealth argues that appellant was not in custody
on November 13 for the purposes of Miranda because he was
incarcerated in another jurisdiction on another charge and had
not been arrested for the offenses relating to the telephone
calls. The Commonwealth's argument clearly is contrary to the
holding of the United States Supreme Court in Mathis v. United
States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968). In Mathis, the Court found the
defendant, who was incarcerated in prison on a state sentence
but had not been charged for the offenses under investigation,
was in custody under the reasoning in Miranda. See Mathis, 391
U.S. at 2-5. The Court stated, "We find nothing in the Miranda
opinion which calls for a curtailment of the warnings to be
given persons under interrogation by officers based on the
reason why the person is in custody." Id. at 4-5. In accord
with Mathis, we reject the Commonwealth's argument and hold that
appellant was in custody for the purposes of Miranda.
Therefore, under Edwards, we find that all interrogation of
- 10 -
appellant by the police should have ceased when he asked to
speak with his attorney.
The officers then permitted appellant to telephone his
attorney. Just before calling his attorney, appellant indicated
his continuing desire to speak with his attorney by stating, "I
just got to ask him somethin'." The attorney was unavailable
when appellant telephoned. Detective Hartless said, "Did they
say when your attorney would be back?" Appellant answered,
"Nah, they thought he was in court." Detective Hartless stated,
"Ok we can continue to talk, or, you know, remember you said you
wanted to talk to your attorney." Appellant said, "Well, I do
'cause I asked him about . . . ask Randy again." Appellant
clearly answered the detective in the affirmative regarding his
desire to speak to his attorney. Appellant's statement, "Well,
I do . . . ," also was in the present tense, indicating a
continuing desire to speak with the attorney. Then, immediately
following appellant's statement that he wanted to speak to his
attorney about Randy, Investigator Schwartz asked, ”Who is
Randy?" Appellant then described his involvement with Randy and
admitted that he made two of the telephone calls to the
children. We do not find that any of appellant's repeated
requests to speak to his attorney could be construed as
initiating a "generalized discussion about the investigation."
By inquiring about Randy and asking appellant about his
involvement with Randy and the telephone calls, the officers
- 11 -
clearly resumed interrogation after appellant's invocation of
his right to counsel.
The trial judge found that appellant waived his right to
counsel after the initial invocation. We find that the trial
court erred in determining that there was a waiver. Under
Edwards, waiver only lies when the defendant is in continuous
custody from the time of the invocation and the defendant either
initiates the conversation with the police or has his attorney
present during the conversation. In this case, appellant did
not initiate the November 13 interview with the police, nor did
he have counsel present at the meeting. Therefore, appellant
could not have waived his right to counsel at the November 13
meeting under the Edwards test. Therefore, the trial court's
denial of appellant's motion to suppress the November 13
statement was error.
Appellant contends the November 22 statement should have
been suppressed because: 1) it was tainted by the illegal
information obtained on November 13, 2) it was an attempt to
clarify his statements made on November 13, and 3) appellant was
not re-advised of his Miranda rights. We agree with appellant
that he should have been re-advised of his rights before the
November 22 interview.
Edwards held that a statement made by a defendant, who had
been in continuous custody prior to making the statement and who
had initiated the conversation with the police, may be
- 12 -
admissible if the trial court determines that the defendant
knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. See
Quinn, 25 Va. App. at 712, 492 S.E.2d at 475. In this case, it
is undisputed that appellant requested the November 22 interview
with Detective Hartless. The trial judge stated that appellant
waived his rights because he initiated the conversation and
acknowledged that he had been advised of his rights and the
Miranda warnings. However, the record does not support the
trial court's conclusion. At the outset of the November 22
interview, Detective Hartless asked appellant two questions,
"Okay, do I need to read you your rights again? Do you know
'em?" Appellant answered with one word, "Naw." It simply is
unclear from the record whether appellant's answer pertained to
the first or the second of the detective's questions. We cannot
conclude that appellant's one word answer indicates his knowing
and voluntary waiver of his rights under Miranda. We hold that
the trial court's determination of waiver was error and the
statement, therefore, should have been suppressed.
B. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
On brief, the Commonwealth concedes that the evidence was
insufficient to convict appellant under Code § 18.2-370 on the
Kida charge. We, therefore, reverse appellant's conviction of
taking indecent liberties with a minor on the Kida charge and
enter final judgment.
- 13 -
C. SENTENCING HEARING
Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to
separate witnesses and in permitting evidence of unadjudicated
criminal conduct at the sentencing hearing. We agree with
appellant that the trial court improperly failed to separate the
witnesses, but find no error in the introduction of evidence of
unadjudicated criminal conduct.
Code § 19.2-265.1 states:
In the trial of every criminal case,
the court, whether a court of record or a
court not of record, may upon its own motion
and shall upon the motion of either the
attorney for the Commonwealth or any
defendant, require the exclusion of every
witness to be called, including, but not
limited to, police officers or other
investigators; however, each defendant who
is an individual and one officer or agent of
each defendant which is a corporation or
association shall be exempt from the rule of
this section as a matter of right.
In Johnson v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 682, 683, 232 S.E.2d
741, 742 (1977), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that a
defendant's right to exclusion of witnesses at trial was
absolute.
Therefore, as the sentencing phase is a part of the trial,
the trial judge in this case was required by the mandatory
language in Code § 19.2-265.1 to exclude the witnesses from the
courtroom on appellant's motion. We do not reach a harmless
error analysis as this case is remanded for further proceedings.
- 14 -
Code § 19.2-264.3:2 states:
Upon motion of the defendant, in any
case in which the offense for which the
defendant is to be tried may be punishable
by death, if the attorney for the
Commonwealth intends to introduce during a
sentencing proceeding held pursuant to
§ 19.2-264.4 evidence of defendant's
unadjudicated criminal conduct, the attorney
for the Commonwealth shall give notice in
writing to the attorney for the defendant of
such intention. The notice shall include a
description of the alleged unadjudicated
criminal conduct and, to the extent such
information is available, the time and place
such conduct will be alleged to have
occurred.
The court shall specify the time by
which such notice shall be given.
Code § 19.2-299(A)(ii) states, in pertinent part, that when
a person is found guilty upon a felony charge
the court may . . . direct a probation
officer of such court to thoroughly
investigate and report upon the history of
the accused, including a report of the
accused's criminal record as an adult and
available juvenile court records, and all
other relevant facts, to fully advise the
court so the court may determine the
appropriate sentence to be imposed.
We have interpreted Code § 19.2-299 to include the
introduction of evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct in
non-capital murder felony cases. See Thomas v. Commonwealth, 18
Va. App. 656, 658-59, 446 S.E.2d 469, 471 (1994) (en banc).
While in Thomas, the evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct
was introduced through the presentence report, we find no
distinction between a probation officer's report of the
- 15 -
defendant's past history and the admissibility of live testimony
on the issue.
Therefore, appellant's argument that evidence of
unadjudicated criminal conduct is limited to capital murder
cases is without merit.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we hold that appellant's November 13,
1996 and November 22, 1996 statements to Detective Hartless were
inadmissible pursuant to Edwards. We also hold that the
evidence was insufficient to support appellant's conviction
under Code § 18.2-370 on the Kida charge. Therefore, we reverse
appellant's convictions and remand for further proceedings if
the Commonwealth be so advised.
Reversed and dismissed,
in part, and reversed
and remanded, in part.
- 16 -