The Minnesota Court of Appeals Monday ruled in favor of Morrison County District Court's decision involving a man convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Jason DeWayne Kirk challenged the district court's decision on his conviction, arguing the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement and by excluding expert testimony regarding the issue of false confessions. The state disagreed and said the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proposed expert testimony regarding false confessions, according to the unpublished opinion of the state court of appeals document.
According to the appeals document, Kirk was living with a woman he had a romantic relationship with and he began providing childcare for her young children on a regular basis. On Jan. 8, 2013, the woman's child was 6 and was working on her homework at her grandmother's house. Her homework was to draw what she did the past weekend, and her grandmother became concerned when she drew a picture of a computer screen depicting a woman performing oral sex on a man.
A child protection investigator interviewed the girl who said the picture was of a pornographic movie she saw on Kirk's computer. She said Kirk had shown her the video in the living room of their home when her mother was at work. The girl also said Kirk made sexual contact with her.
Authorities talked with Kirk and he was told at the start of the interview that the interview concerned "some inappropriate touching that occurred." Kirk was given a Miranda warning and he indicated that he understood his rights and was willing to speak with the investigators. Kirk also was informed of his privacy rights regarding the child protection investigation and told Kirk that he did not have to answer any of the questions that he was asked. Kirk indicated he understood and he wished to continue with the interview. During the interview, which lasted just over one hour, Kirk denied watching pornographic movies with the girl or inappropriately touching her. He eventually admitted to sexually assaulting the girl.
ADVERTISEMENT
Kirk was charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. At his first appearance, Kirk, appearing on his own behalf, told the district court his statement to law enforcement was made under duress. Later, Kirk, now represented by counsel, moved to suppress the statement he had given to law enforcement, asserting it was involuntary because it had been obtained by coercion. The district court denied this motion. Before trial, Kirk sought permission to call an expert witness to testify regarding false confessions. The state moved to exclude such testimony, and the district court granted the state's motion.
The first trial ended in a mistrial. At the second trial, the state played redacted versions of the girl's interview with the child protection investigator and the interview of Kirk at the sheriff's office. Kirk testified on his own behalf and denied he had ever sexually abused the girl. Kirk stated that on the day of the alleged abuse, he was home with the two children and allowed the girl to watch him play a video game for a few hours. Kirk testified he confessed to law enforcement because he was afraid child protection would take the children away unless he confessed because child protection had previously removed the children from the house. He also stated he thought a therapist would recognize he did not do the crime and he did not have the type of personality to harm a child. Kirk testified he tried to say things during the interview so the investigators would think he was mentally ill, merely repeated details they had told him and he was sleep deprived at the time. The jury initially told the district court it was deadlocked, but after receiving further instructions, the jury again deliberated and found Kirk guilty. The district court sentenced Kirk to 144 months in prison. The appeal followed.
Kirk challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession as an involuntary statement. The district court found Kirk's statement was voluntary. In reaching this conclusion, the district court considered the circumstances of the interview, the age, experience, and education of Kirk, and the tactics employed by law enforcement. Despite its overall finding that Kirk's statement to police was voluntary, the district court expressed some concern with the interview, noting that the investigators came close to making promises to Kirk that they could not keep. Of particular concern was their assertion of having "enormous power" with the county attorney's office coupled with their suggestion that a confession would lead to counseling and a reunification of Kirk's family, the document said. The district court concluded the tactics were not so deceptive as to lead an innocent person to confess. The appeals court also agreed with the district court that Kirk was advised of his rights and he understood them.
Kirk argued the statements and questions from the investigators are "of the character that would convince an innocent person to confess." Kirk contends the statements made by the investigators consisted of "threats of prison versus family unification and counseling" which "crossed the line into an impermissible inducement to confess," the document read.
The appeals court disagreed and said investigators did not indicate at any time that Kirk would not be prosecuted if he confessed. Kirk was informed he was most likely going to be charged with the crime. The appeals court also said Kirk was given adequate warnings about what the interview was about.
The court document also said Kirk was not intoxicated, was not deprived of any of his physical needs and was not questioned for an excessive length of time. Despite the promises of law enforcement, the totality of the circumstances indicates Kirk's statement was voluntary.
The appeals court said even though the investigator said he had "enormous amount of power" with the county attorney's office, he also said the attorney's office usually takes his recommendations into account. The court said such statements are not the type of statements that would make an innocent person confess.
Kirk challenged the district court's exclusion of proffered expert testimony regarding false confessions. He sought permission to call Dr. Deborah Davis as an expert witness to testify about false confessions, including how to tell the difference between true and false confessions. Kirk specified Dr. Davis would not testify as to her opinion of whether Kirk was telling the truth. The district court excluded Dr. Davis's testimony regarding false confessions, stating "the case law in this state strongly suggests Kirk's proffered expert witness testimony is not admissible at trial." Kirk argued the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to present a complete defense when it excluded his expert witness who would have testified about the nature of false confessions. Kirk argued the proposed testimony is distinguishable from the testimony excluded in the cases cited by the district court. Kirk alleged testimony regarding false confessions is instead analogous to expert testimony regarding battered woman syndrome or the effect of sexual abuse on children. He also argued that knowledge about false confessions has expanded significantly in recent years and that changes in such knowledge may require the "reevaluation of case law on the admissibility of expert evidence."
ADVERTISEMENT
The appeals court disagreed with Kirk and said Dr. Davis' testimony is comparable to the testimony excluded in a case he discussed in the courtroom. The court found Dr. Davis' testimony was unnecessary for the jury to consider because the pressures of interrogation techniques are within the understanding of a lay juror. Kirk's entire interview was recorded, and the jury had the opportunity to hear the questions that were asked and the manner and tone of voice in which they were asked, giving the jury the ability to determine whether the interrogation tactics elicited a false confession. Kirk himself testified about why he allegedly gave a false confession.
