Login | March 28, 2024

Court rules pre-interview forms do not need to include all possible charges

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: May 27, 2015

The 2nd District Court of Appeals recently considered whether a pre-interview form that a defendant signed prior to a police interview was required to include all possible charges that could potentially be pursued.

The case out of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas concerned the conviction of defendant Joseph Fricke, who pleaded no contest to sexual imposition and receiving stolen property.

In his challenge to his convictions, Fricke argued in a single assignment of error that he was “deceived” by the fact that the police did not inform him, when interviewing him about a theft charge, that other charges could be pursued.

Case summary states that, in October 2010, the University of Dayton Police Department was informed of a possible burglary near the university.

The building was not university owned but students lived there.

The responding officers learned that a party had been held at the residence the night prior and that several items of personal property were missing.

The officers were also informed that unwanted sexual conduct occurred during the party.

Through an investigation, University of Dayton police officer Tom Weber discovered that Fricke was somehow involved in the matter.

Fricke voluntarily came to the police station where he met with Weber and another officer in an interview room.

Prior to the interview, Fricke signed a pre-interview form which was completed by Weber and listed “theft” as the reason for the questioning. The issue of sexual contact was not listed on the form.

Court documents state that Fricke was then informed of his Miranda rights, which he indicated that he understood and then waived, and the interview proceeded lasting for about an hour.

At the end of the interview, Fricke agreed to provide a written statement to police.

Fricke was subsequently indicted on two counts of sexual imposition and one count of receiving stolen property.

Before entering his plea, he filed a motion to dismiss the statements that he made to police, but that was overruled by the trial court after a hearing.

After his no contest plea and conviction, Fricke was sentenced and designated a Tier I Sex offender.

On appeal, Fricke contended that his statements to police were not voluntary and, since the claims of sexual assault were not included on the pre-interview form, Weber impliedy promised that no additional charges would occur if Fricke spoke with police.

He further claimed that, because of the omission of the sexual assault, his “will was overborne and his capacity for self-deprivation was critically impaired due to the implied promise of leniency at the time of his confession.”

The reviewing panel of judges found little to support Fricke’s claims.

“The record in this case establishes that Fricke was informed of his rights and waived them,” Judge Mike Fain wrote for the court of appeals. “We find nothing in the record to indicate coercive conduct by the police.”

Fain noted that the 2nd District court had considered a similar case in 2000. In State v. Overholser the reviewing court held, “The mere failure to advise a suspect of the scope of a criminal investigation has been held not to vitiate a Miranda waiver because a valid waiver does not require that an individual be informed of all information useful in making his decision where all information might affect his decision to confess.”

The court of appeals made a similar finding in Fricke’s case: “We further conclude that the mere fact that reference to a possibly suspected offense was omitted from the pre-interview form does not render Fricke’s statements involuntary, because that omission does not create an implied promise of leniency.”

Accordingly, Fricke’s single assignment of error was overruled and the judgment of the Montgomery County court affirmed.

Judges Mary Donovan and Jeffrey Welbaum concurred.

The case is cited State v. Fricke, 2015-Ohio-1747.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]