Filed 4 / 19 / 21 P. v. Chalquest CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff a nd Respondent,

v.

CHRISTINE ELLEN CHALQUEST,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B302637 (Super. Ct. No. 2019002076) (Ventura County)

Christine Ellen Chalquest appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted her of driving under the influence of al cohol with a qualifying prior conviction (Veh. Code, 1 §§ 23550.5, subd. (a), 23152, subd. (a) ; count 1 ) , a felony, and driving with a blood
alcohol content over 0.08% with a qualifying prior conviction (§§ 23550.5, subd . (a), 23152, subd. (b) ; count 2 ) , a felony

. Chalquest admitted she had a prior conviction for driving under

1 Further unspecified statutory provisions are to the Vehicle Code.2

the influence and causing bodily injury (§ 23153, subd. (a))

. The
trial court placed her on probation for five years with terms, including one ye ar in county jail.

Chalquest contends the trial court erred when it
admitted into evidence her statements obtained in violation of
Miranda

. 2 We affirm.

FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Traffic Collision
L.B. was stopped at a traffic light around noon when Chalqu est hit L.B.’s car from behind. L.B. honked her horn to get Chalquest’s attention, but Chalquest continued driving. L.B. followed Chalquest

.

When Chalquest stopped in a parking lot, L.B

. approac hed Chal quest and asked her why she did not stop

. Chalquest “looked like she didn’t seem to know exactly what happened.” Chalquest said that she knew she hit a car, but did

not know what happened to the car. L.B. had to ask Chalquest
for her insurance information four times before Chalquest produced the information.

About an hour later, Chalquest drove to her place of employment

. An individual who worked next door saw Chalquest park in her usual spot in an “odd ” and “crooked[]” way. The
indi vidual also noticed th e car was dented in the front.

A bout twenty minutes later, ambulance and firefighters arrived at the location to treat Chalquest

. Two
V entura County p olice officers were also dispatched to investigate an “injury collision.” When the officers arrived, Chalquest was sitting in the back of the ambulance

. O fficer

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.3

Christopher Aguilar spoke to the fire captain, who said that Chalquest reported an injury from a n earlier collision and that
she had “ consumed approximately five to ten 20

- ounce alcoholic beverages.”
The Interview

Chalquest was transported to a hospital

, where the

two officers interviewed her

. When th ey arrived , Chalquest was sleep ing o n a hospital stretcher

, and the officers had to wak e her

up. Aguilar testified he “immediately noticed that she had red and watery eyes, she had very slurred speech, and she had a strong odor of alco hol emitting from her body. ”

The interview lasted about two to three hours. During that time, the officers went “back and forth trying to talk to [Chalquest]” while they did paperwork, Chalquest went “in and out of sleep, ” and the medical personn el took tests and
treated her. Chalquest told the officers she “ rear

- ended ” a car earlier that day. Aguilar asked if she had consumed alcohol or taken any medication . Chalquest responded that she had
consumed alcohol and taken medication that made her drowsy “between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and noon that day

. ” She
admitted that she was “guilty” of “driv ing while intoxicated

. ”

While Chalquest was answering questions, an other
officer began administer ing a horizontal gaze nystagmus te st. Aguilar noticed that Chalquest’s eyes were “ immediate [ ly ] bouncing

, ” which indicated that there was “ a good amo unt of
al cohol in her system.” Th e officer could not complete the test
because Chalquest “became uncooperative and turned he r body away” from the officer. At the end of the interview, the officers placed Chalquest under arrest and gave her Miranda warnings

.4 H ospital personnel took a sample of Chalquest’s blood at 3:42 p.m

. S he had a blood alcohol content of 0.305%. The
officers found 1 4 empty beer bottle s in a bag inside Chalquest’s
car trunk.
DISCUSSION

Custodial Interrogation Chalquest contend s the trial co urt erred when it
admitted her interview with the officers into evidence because
her statements were obtained in violation of Miranda

. We disagree.
Miranda warnings are only required when a person is subject to custodial interrogation. ( Miranda

, supra , 384 U.S. at p. 444.) “Custodial” means a situation in wh i c h a reasonable person in the defendant ’ s position would not have “ ‘felt free to end the questioning and leave.’” ( People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1400 ( Leonard ).)

A defendant is not in custody where an officer asks

“ ‘[g]eneral on

- the

- scene questioning as to facts surrounding a
crime . . .

. ’ [Citation]

. A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a suspect for investigation and the questioning is limited . . . ‘to obtain [sufficient] information confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. [Citation.]’” ( People v. Davidson (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 966, 97 0 ( Davidson ).)

D etermining w hether a person is in custody is an objective test. ( Davidson

, supra , 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.)

“ T he totality of the circumstances is considered and includes ‘(1) whether the suspect has been formally arrested; (2) absent formal arrest, the length of the detention; (3) the location; (4) the ratio of officers to suspects; and (5) the demeanor of the off icer, including the nature of the questioning.’ [Citation.] Additional factors are5

whether the officer informed the person he or she was considered a witness or suspect, whether there were restrictions on the suspect ’ s freedom of movement, whether the po lice were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory, and whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect. [Citation.]” ( Id. at p. 972.)

W hether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of fact and law. ( People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401.) Where, as here, the facts are largely undisputed

, we independently review the question of whether there was custodial interrogation. ( Leonard

, supra , 40 Cal.4th at

p. 1400. ) The trial court properly found that Chalquest was not in custody. She was o n a hospital stretcher during the interview

, receiving treatment for her injuries. She was not formally
arrested or handcuffed. Although it lasted about two to three hours, the interview was interrupted several times so that Chalquest could receive treatment , or while the officers performed other tasks

. O nly two officers were present
, and medical personnel were also present during parts of the
interview. (See People v. Mos l e y (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1091 [ circumstances, including the presence of medical perso nnel treating a defendant’s gunshot wound during an interview

, created a non

- custodial environment ].)

Aguilar’s questions were not aggressive

, confrontational, or accusatory. He asked Chalquest preliminary questions about the traffic collision and whether she consumed
alcohol or medication before the accident

. ( Davidson

, supra , 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 970.) A reasonable person in Chalquest’s position would have “ ‘fel t free to end the questioning.’ ” ( Leonard

,6

supra , 40 Cal.4th at p. 1400.) A pparently so did Chalquest , as at one point during the contact , she stopped cooperating with the
officers and ended the interaction

.

Chalquest cite s to People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 490 ( Caro )

, in whic h a defendant argued that statements made while she was treated at a hospita l w ere obtained in
violation of Miranda

. O ur Supreme Court did not resolve
whether the interaction in Caro constituted a custodial interrogation

. Instead , it concluded that even if the interaction “was sufficient to violate Caro’s constitutional rights . . . [the admission of the statements] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” ( Id. at p. 493.)

Moreover, Caro is distinguishable because the
circumstances there constitute d a more coer cive environment

. Caro was the main suspect in the murder of her three sons. She underwent surgery for a gunshot wound to the head on the same night of the murder. ( Caro

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p. 473.) The day after surgery, two police officers interviewed her in her hospital

room . ( Ibid. ) The interview was recorded, at least one officer stayed in the hospital room the entire time, and two individuals from the district attorney’s office we re also present for parts of the interview. ( Id. at p. 490.) The interview lasted about three hours, but the questioning was intermittent . Caro was in pain during the interview , and before she received pain medication, the hospital staff “checked in” wi th the officers to ensure that they would not “‘mess up’” the interview

. ( Ibid. ) Toward the end of the interview, the officer told Caro she was a suspect and gave
her Miranda warnings. ( Ibid. ) The court noted that “[s]uch circumstances heighten the risk of coercion. ” ( Id. at p. 493 .) The court placed emphasis on the “c onstant presence of one or more7

law enforcement officers and the suggestion of two staff members that they would not, or could not, interfere with the interview. ” ( Id. at pp. 492

- 493.)

Here, the officers were not a “constant presence

, ” as the y went “back and forth ” interviewing Chalquest while they perform ed other tasks

. There was no suggestion that medical personnel could not interfere with the interview. Under the totality of circumstances here , Chalquest was not in custody. 3
Ha rmless Error In any event, any error in admitting Chalquest ’s

statements w as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

. ( Chapman v. California (1967 ) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; Arizona v. Fulmina nte (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 306 .) Even without evidence of her statements to the police officers, the evidence that she drove under the
influence was overwhelming

. Chalquest caused the collision and drove away from the scene. When confronted, Chalquest ’s responses were “odd

, ” and she looked “like she didn’t seem to know exactly what happened

. ” She later parked her car at her workplace in an “odd ” and “crooked[]” way.

A fter the collision, Chalquest told the fire captain
that she consum ed “ approximately five to ten 20

- ounce alcoholic beverages” that day. When Aguilar encountered her, he “immediately noticed that she had red and watery eyes, she had very slurred speech, and she had a strong odor of alcohol emitting

3 Chalquest also argues that the interview constituted an interrogation for Miranda purposes. Because we conclude Chalquest was not in custody at the time of the interview, we need not address whether she was interrogated. Both custody and interrogation are necessa ry to trigger the requirement of a Miranda admonition. ( People v. Underwood (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d. 1223, 1231.)8

from her body. ” Chalquest’s horizontal gaze nystagmus test and
the blood test results s howed that she was under the influenc e of
alcohol a few hours after the accident

. And, there were 14 empty
beer bo ttles in the trunk of her car. A ny error in admitting Chalquest’s statements was therefore harmless.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN , J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, JAnthony J. Sabo, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon and Michael L. Tetreault , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.