Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/20/218.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:15:56+00:00

Document:
Lawrence M. Gassner, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, Jay M. Bloom and Harley D. Mayfield, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Lorrie Sue McClary appeals from a conviction of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.) Among other contentions, defendant asserts that the trial court committed reversible error when it permitted the prosecution to introduce into evidence (1) certain portions of a tape-recorded statement made by defendant during [20 Cal. 3d 222] the course of police interrogation, and (2) a filmed "reenactment" of the crime made by defendant shortly after recording her statement. Based upon our independent review of the record, we will conclude that both the statement and the reenactment were involuntary, being induced by implied threats of punishment and promises of leniency; that the error in admitting this evidence was prejudicial; and that accordingly defendant's conviction must be reversed.
On August 29, 1975, a highway patrolman discovered the body of 79-year-old Anna G. Mills in San Bernardino County. An autopsy determined that she had died from strangulation. Acting on information known to them, on September 30, 1975, San Bernardino County officers arrested defendant and her companion Sonny Wilson in San Mateo County, and within two hours of her arrest the officers conducted a taped "interview" with defendant, who was then 16 years of age. Although defendant's statements during this initial conversation were suppressed at trial, and accordingly are not directly at issue herein, we review the surrounding circumstances in some detail, as they bear on the propriety of the defendant's second interview, a part of which was submitted to the jury.
Despite defendant's immediate request for an attorney, the officers continued to interrogate her. Sergeant Edmonds accused defendant of having previously "lied" to the officers regarding a wallet connected to the murder, and he told defendant that "Now maybe you're not lying to us about the murder. We don't know. But we know that you're lying to us about this wallet. [¶] ... So do you want to tell us anything about the wallet now?" Once again, defendant replied, "I'd rather wait and talk to an attorney first." (Italics added.) Yet the interrogation continued, the officers describing the various items of incriminating evidence which they had marshalled, and urging defendant "to tell your side of the story."
In response to the officer's discourse, defendant asked for a further explanation of the difference between a principal and an accessory. Detective May, explaining that a principal is one who committed the murder or participated in some way, whereas an accessory only has "knowledge" of the murder after it occurred, added, "They are not punishable by life imprisonment. They're not punishable by death." Once again, May stated that "unless we hear a different story," the officers would consider defendant the principal; that the officers have "shot down" defendant's version of the events; that "There may be another story which means maybe you are not directly involved, but maybe you're an accessory" and that "It's all up to you, Lorrie. We can't force you [to talk]."
The interview terminated at 2:50 p.m. after defendant stated "I think I'd like to talk to a lawyer." (Italics added.) This was the fourth time during the interview that defendant had asked for an attorney to assist her. No attorney was obtained.
The second interview was conducted by Detective May at the San Mateo County jail in Redwood City and was also tape recorded. At the commencement thereof, May established that defendant had requested the "re-interview," and that she was "now willing to talk ... without an attorney present." Defendant also confirmed that no "promises" had been made to her to induce her to give a further statement. During the course of this conversation (which lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes), defendant admitted that she had wrapped a rope around Mrs. Mills' neck and pulled on it after Mrs. Mills had assertedly jabbed at Sonny and her with a knife; that Sonny also pulled on the rope as defendant and Mrs. Mills struggled with each other; and that Mrs. Mills died as a result of their actions. Defendant detailed the circumstances of the event, and of her attempts to cover up the killing. At the conclusion of the interview, defendant agreed to give a filmed "crime re-enactment," demonstrating in Mrs. Mills' kitchen the events which had transpired. The filmed reenactment of the killing of Mrs. Mills occurred the next day, October 1, 1975, in the victim's home in San Bernardino County. The statements and actions of defendant during the filming conformed substantially to the text of defendant's second interview previously recited.
Prior to trial, defense counsel objected to the introduction of the text of the first and second interviews, and of the filmed reenactment. The trial court, after a hearing, ruled that although the first interview was conducted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, and would be suppressed at trial, nevertheless since defendant voluntarily "initiated" the second interview, and consented to the reenactment, the text of the interrogation and portrayal was admissible. Accordingly, portions of the second interview, and the entire filmed reenactment, were admitted at trial and were disclosed to the jury.
The People concede that the officers violated defendant's Miranda rights when they ignored her repeated requests for an attorney to assist her, and that accordingly the text of her first statement was properly ruled inadmissible.  Indeed, the rule is well established that once a suspect "indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning .... The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned." (Miranda, supra, at pp. 444-445 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 706-707]; see People v. Superior Court (Zolnay) (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 729, 735-736 [125 Cal. Rptr. 798, 542 P.2d 1390].) [2a] It is defendant's position that once she requested an attorney, the officers should have immediately ceased their interrogation efforts and procured an attorney to assist her. Instead, the interrogation continued, ultimately resulting in the incriminatory statements made during the second interview and filmed reenactment.
The trial court found, however, that defendant initiated the second interview.  We have repeatedly held that "A suspect who has asserted his rights and prevented further lawful interrogation nonetheless retains the option, thereafter, voluntarily to initiate a confession." (Italics added, People v. Superior Court (Zolnay), supra, at pp. 736-737; see People v. Superior Court (Keithley) (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 406, 412 [118 Cal. Rptr. 617, 530 P.2d 585]; People v. Randall (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 948, 956, fn. 7 [83 Cal. Rptr. 658, 464 P.2d 114]; People v. Fioritto (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 714, 719 [68 Cal. Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625].) In the present case, defendant herself acknowledged to Detective May that she requested the second interview, and the trial court (at the pretrial suppression hearing) determined that "From what evidence I have heard, even from her [defendant's] own testimony, she is the one that initiated the opportunity for the second interview."
As noted above, however, it is essential that a defendant's waiver of Miranda rights be a voluntary one. As stated in People v. Randall, supra, "a change of mind on the part of the defendant prompted by the advice of counsel, his own psychological make-up, or similar facts ... is not proscribed by Miranda ...." (1 Cal.3d at p. 956, fn. 7.) On the other hand, "a change of mind prompted by continued interrogation and efforts to convince the defendant to communicate with the officers" [20 Cal. 3d 227] cannot be considered a voluntary, self-initiated conversation. (Ibid.) Thus, the resolution of defendant's Miranda contention requires us to resolve her second main contention: that she did not voluntarily initiate the second interview with the officers.
2. Was the Second Interview Initiated Voluntarily?
[2c] In the matter before us, the record reflects that the officers repeatedly branded defendant a liar, and advised her that unless she changed her statement and admitted the true extent of her complicity, she would be charged as a principal to murder and would face the death penalty. In addition to this direct, and partially false (Pen. Code, § 190.3) threat, the officers strongly implied that if defendant changed her story and admitted mere "knowledge" of the murder, she might be charged only as an accessory after the fact. At trial, defendant testified that she decided to make a second statement as a result of the pressure exerted by the officers during the first interview, including their references to the death penalty.
We think the following facts are significant: Defendant, while doubtless sophisticated for her years, was a 16-year-old girl; the officers failed to respond to any of defendant's repeated requests for the assistance of counsel; there was a relatively short time span between the two interviews during some of which time defendant had remained in the officers' presence; during the first interview defendant had several times been called a liar; the death penalty had been improperly mentioned; there were implications for leniency in the "principal vs. accessory" conversation. Taken together, we think it fair to conclude from the record that the threats of punishment and the promises of leniency echoed in the continuum between the two conversations to a degree which renders her statements in the second interview involuntary and inadmissible. In addition, the record indicates that the filmed reenactment of the killing was a direct product of the statements made by defendant at the second interview, and likewise must be considered involuntary and inadmissible. (People v. Johnson (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 541, 547 [75 Cal. Rptr. 401, 450 P.2d 865, 43 A.L.R.3d 366] [second confession presumed a product of the first]; People v. Sanchez, supra, 70 Cal. 2d 562, [20 Cal. 3d 230] 574 [same].) The People have conceded that there was no break in the "causative chain" between the second interview and the filming.
[6a] Finally, we must conclude that the error in admitting the foregoing evidence was prejudicial to defendant and constitutes ground for reversing the judgment.  Under present rules for determining the existence of prejudicial error, the improper introduction of a confession is considered reversible per se (People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal. 3d 948, 958; People v. Fioritto, supra, 68 Cal. 2d 714, 720), whereas wrongful introduction of an admission is deemed prejudicial unless the People show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 [17 L. Ed. 2d 705, 710-711, 87 S. Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065]; People v. Spencer (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 158-168 [57 Cal. Rptr. 163, 424 P.2d 715]; People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 32, 56 [59 Cal. Rptr. 817, 429 P.2d 137]). We have described a confession as amounting to a declaration of defendant's intentional participation in a criminal act, whereas an admission is merely the recital of facts tending to establish guilt when considered with the remaining evidence in the case. (People v. Fitzgerald (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 855, 861 [17 Cal. Rptr. 129, 366 P.2d 481]; see People v. Powell, supra, at pp. 52-53.) [6b] Defendant's second interview and filmed reenactment of the killing of Mrs. Mills contained much exculpatory material and possessed more of the characteristics of an admission than a confession. In effect, defendant's statement in the matter before us indicated that she unintentionally killed Mrs. Mills while attempting to prevent her unprovoked assault on Sonny and herself.
The People contend that the prejudicial impact of defendant's admission was lessened by her own trial testimony, which substantially paralleled the events described in the statement and film. We may properly assume, however, that defendant's testimony was impelled by the prosecutor's introduction of her admission during the People's case in chief. (See People v. Powell, supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 57, fn. 9; People v. Spencer, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 163-164; People v. Stockman (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 494, 502 [47 Cal. Rptr. 365, 407 P.2d 277].) It seems likely that defendant would not have admitted killing Mrs. Mills but for the erroneous introduction of the foregoing evidence.

References: § 187
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 190
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.