Goodwin v. Commonwealth (1986)

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986). *289 The appellant was advised of his Miranda rights and indicated his willingness to talk to police officers.

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986)(prosecution must show that the defendant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional privileges against self-incrimination and right to counsel). “[T]he *556 issue of voluntariness. . . is a legal question requiring independent review by an appellate court, based upon the entire record.” Goodwin, 3 Va. App. at 253 , 349 S.E.2d at 163 .

But see Burket v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 596, 612 (1994) (“Based on the trial court’s findings and our independent review of the record, we hold, as a matter of law, that Burket’s waiver of his Miranda rights was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” (emphasis added)). 8 See Keepers v. Commonwealth, 72 Va. App. 17 , 37 (2020) (“This decision is a question of fact, and ‘the circuit court’s determination on this issue “will not be set aside on appeal unless plainly w…

See Terrell v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 285, 290 , 403 S.E.2d 387, 389 (1991); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253, 257 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163, 165-66 (1986). - 11 - Examining the totality of circumstances in this case, we do not find substantial and credible evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant's statement was taken in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

In assessing the voluntariness of a confession on appeal, “[w]e must [independently] determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the mak er’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App.…

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

In conducting its review, the court “must determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986) (…

Novak v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 373, 386-87 (1995) (quoting Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 (1986)).

Id.; Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 254-56 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 164-65 (1986).

In assessing the voluntariness of a confession on appeal, “we must [independently] determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Novak v. Commonwealth, 20 Va.App. 373…

Edwards v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 752, 761 , 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) (en banc). -5- statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Novak v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 373, 386-87 , 457 S.E.2d 402, 408 (1995) (quoting Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986)).

In conducting its review, the court “must determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986) (…

Our consideration must include "not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused." Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986).

Shackleford, 32 Va. App. at 322-23 , 528 S.E.2d at 131 (citing Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986)).

"In considering the standard of review in this case, we are confronted with two separate questions: (1) the standard of review of a trial court's finding of the voluntariness of a confession; and (2) the standard of review concerning the finding of the validity of a waiver of Miranda rights." Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

The second instruction, taken from this Court's decision in Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986), reads as follows: In determining whether the statement [Moore] made to [the detective] was voluntary, you should consider whether in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but the characteristics of [Moore], the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choi…

The manner in which the detective read the statement to Benjamin was so unintelligible that it was functionally equivalent to not reading to Benjamin the Miranda rights. *554 Furthermore, based on the evidence in the record, the trial judge did not err in ruling that the Commonwealth did not meet its “burden of proving that the defendant knowingly [, voluntarily,] and intelligently waived the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.” Good…

Further, an appellate court “may rely upon the observations of the trial judge and the trial judge’s findings of fact, except as to the ultimate issue of voluntariness.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 249, 257 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 166 (1986).

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , reh’g denied, 444 U.S. 887 (1979); Venable v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 358, 359 , 404 S.E.2d 74, 75 (1991); Shell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 247, 252 , 397 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1990); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986). *330 III.

Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)).

It must show that the accused “knowingly and intelligently waived the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

Voluntariness is determined “in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, [whether] the statement was a product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether its maker’s will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163-64 (1986).

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 (1966); Smith v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 310, 314, 373 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1988); Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

With respect to the second inquiry, in deciding whether defendant’s statement was voluntary* the Court "must determine whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, including not only the details of the interrogation, but also the characteristics of the accused, the statement was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, or whether the maker's will was overcome and his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired” Goodwin …

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).

See Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

Miranda[v. Arizona], 384 U.S. [436,] 476, 86 S. Ct. [1602,] 1629 [, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)]; see also Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 252 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

See Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249 , 349 S.E.2d 161 (1986).

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).

See also Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va.App. 249 , 349 S.E.2d 161 (1986) (holding that defendant’s mental retardation and intoxication did not interfere with his ability to make a voluntary confession).

See Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249 , 349 S.E.2d 161 (1986).

Watkins v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 469, 477 , 331 S.E.2d 422, 429-30 (1985) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1099 (1986); accord Mu’Min v. Commonwealth, 239 Va. 433, 440 , 389 S.E.2d 886, 891 (1990), aff’d on other grounds, 500 U.S._, 111 S.Ct. *582 1899 (1991); see also Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986).

See Goodwin v. *552 Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 253 , 349 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1986); Kauffmann v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 400, 405 , 382 S.E.2d 279, 281 (1989); Lanier v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 541, 555-56 , 394 S.E.2d 495, 504 (1990); Shell v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 247, 252 , 397 S.E.2d 673, 676 (1990); Mundy v. Commonwealth, 11 Va. App. 461, 477 , 390 S.E.2d 525, 533 (1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 127 (1991).

Simpson, 227 Va. at 564 ; see also Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249, 254-57 (1986).

See Lewis v. Commonwealth, 2009 Va. App. lexis 357 (2009) (the defendant’s waiver was found to be knowing and intelligent despite his only completing the ninth grade and having been labeled borderline mentally retarded); Hickman v. Commonwealth, 1995 Va. App. lexis 555 (1995) (waiver by an eighth grade student with a recorded IQ of 67 found to be knowing and intelligent); see also Goodwin v. Commonwealth, 3 Va. App. 249 (1986) (waiver found to be knowing and intelligent desp…