Motion to suppress the statements made to police; Custody; “Cumulative effect” of the alleged violations; Sufficiency of the evidence; First-degree premeditated murder; Aiding & abetting; Prosecutorial misconduct; Fair trial; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the misconduct

Finding no errors warranting relief, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions of first-degree murder for aiding and abetting in the shooting deaths of the victims. He argued, among other things, that the trial court erred when it admitted at trial two statements he made to police officers. He maintained “that he did not validly waive his earlier invocation of his right to have a lawyer present” and thus, his subsequent statements were inadmissible. The prosecutor sought to admit his comment about turning himself in. The trial court found he “chose to go the police station to inquire about his personal belongings, therefore, he was not in custody and Miranda warnings were not required.” Further, the trial court concluded that the interrogating officer, C, “did not question defendant nor make any statements that were the functional equivalent of questioning. The trial court found this statement to be admissible at trial.” He asserted the trial court erred in admitting the statement because he “had earlier asserted his right to a lawyer.” However, it was evident that he was not in custody during the 2/26/21 encounter, as the trial court found. The trial court did not err in holding he “was not in custody for purposes of Miranda during this encounter on” 2/26/21. The totality of the circumstances indicated he “was not in a custodial environment or otherwise not free to leave.” The court held that he was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way to require Miranda warnings to be administered. “The trial court found that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the [3/9/21] encounter at the tether agent’s office indicated that defendant was in a custodial environment.” The court concluded he “was required to be there as a condition of his bond, the tether agent was a government official in her office, the door was shut, and it was not clear if defendant was free to leave.” Thus, the trial court found his “statements should be suppressed because he was not informed of his Miranda rights and was interrogated regarding the murders.” The last encounter with police occurred on 3/29/21. The trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress. The court found that C’s “recitation of defendant’s rights was consistent with the requirements of Miranda.” The court held that “defendant knew that he could stop the interrogation by asserting his right to a lawyer because the officers ended two prior interrogations as a result of his invocation of the right, and they told him that was the reason they were required to end those interrogations.”