Submitted January 29, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
DVM-625-17, Hon. Judith A. Smith, Trial Judge
Sweta
Patel was on the brief for appellant.
Jessie
K. Liu, United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman,
Nicholas P. Coleman, Janani Iyengar, and Kristina L. Ament,
Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for
appellee.
Before
Beckwith and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior
Judge.
Nebeker, Senior Judge
Following
a bench trial in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court,
appellant Adrienne Johnson was found guilty of attempted
second-degree cruelty to children and attempted possession of
a prohibited weapon (PPW). Appellant argues that the trial
court erred when it denied her motion to suppress her
statements to the police and that the evidence was
insufficient to support her convictions. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
I.
On May
14, 2017, appellant beat her thirteen-year-old son A.J. with
a wooden stick about the size of a broomstick. Appellant
repeatedly hit A.J. with the stick while he sat on the floor
in the corner of his room and raised his left arm to block
his face. The stick broke during the beating, and appellant
continued to strike A.J. with the two broken pieces. As a
result of the beating, A.J. sustained bruises and marks to
his arms, shoulder, and legs, and had a mark behind his left
ear.
On May
15, 2017, Ricky Clayton, a social worker for the Child and
Family Services Agency (CFSA), called appellant to follow up
on her case that was already open with CFSA.[1] During that phone
call, appellant stated that she beat A.J. because he
"broke into her room" and retrieved his Kindle Fire
tablet that appellant kept in her room as a punishment. That
same day, Metropolitan Police Department Detective Karane
Williams-Thomas was assigned to appellant's case as a
"hot case," and she went to appellant's home
with her partner Detective Aaron Mackinoff and social worker
Kimberly Hayes to interview appellant and her two younger
sons. Appellant answered the front door, and Detective
Williams-Thomas introduced herself, stating that she was
investigating an allegation of physical abuse. At
appellant's home, individuals from CFSA's
Homebuilders program were already present. Appellant admitted
the detectives and social worker into her home and gave them
permission to interview her two younger sons while she spoke
with the individuals from the Homebuilders program. Detective
Williams-Thomas's service revolver was underneath her
jacket, and she was not with any uniformed police officer.
After the detective interviewed appellant's sons, she
interviewed appellant in her living room for about thirty
minutes. During the interview, Detective Williams-Thomas was
just standing off the stairwell while appellant was at a
desk, and Detective Mackinoff was outside of the house,
making phone calls near the front door. Detective
Williams-Thomas testified that she never took handcuffs out,
she never touched appellant, she never threatened appellant,
and she never told appellant that she was under arrest.
On May
16, 2017, appellant was charged with two counts of attempted
second-degree cruelty to children, in violation of D.C. Code
§ 22-1101(b) (2012 Repl.), and two counts of attempted
PPW, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4514(b) (2012
Repl.), one set of counts involving a stick and the other set
involving a belt. On June 26, 2017, appellant filed a
pretrial motion to suppress her statements to the police at
her home, alleging that the statements were obtained in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. A bench trial was held on
September 8, 14, and 18, 2017. During the trial, the court
denied appellant's motion to suppress, and, on October 2,
2017, the court found appellant guilty of one count of
attempted second-degree cruelty to children and one count of
attempted PPW, each involving the stick, and not guilty of
the remaining counts involving the belt. Appellant was
sentenced to ninety days' imprisonment on each count,
with the execution of the sentence suspended, and was placed
on one year of supervised probation. This appeal followed.
II.
1.
Motion to Suppress
Appellant
argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion
to suppress her statements to the police because she was
subject to custodial interrogation but was not advised of her
Miranda rights.[2] Appellant contends that she was in
custody because both detectives were armed, she was never
informed that she was free to leave or that she could refuse
questioning, she was interrogated about a crime, and
Detective Mackinoff's presence near the door created an
impression that ...