Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Statements to Sheriff's Deputies

Text: Defendant raises a number of guilt phase issues relating to statements he made to sheriff's deputies following his arrest. The relevant facts are as follows: On November 29, 1984, defendant was arrested in Los Angeles County on a warrant issued in San Bernardino County for possession of narcotics on prison grounds. The arrest warrant was issued when defendant failed to attend a sentencing hearing in a then-pending matter. About 4 p.m. on November 29, 1984, Sergeant Rod Hoops and two other deputies of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department transported defendant from the Alhambra Police Department to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department in Ontario. During the ride, Sergeant Hoops asked if defendant knew the whereabouts of Frank Hillhouse, defendant's friend. Defendant replied he had heard that Hillhouse was in the Yucca Valley area of San Bernardino County and was involved in shooting a woman in the La Puente area. Sergeant Hoops testified he did not advise defendant of his constitutional rights ( Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 478-479 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726, 86 S.Ct. 1602]) because defendant was at that time not a suspect in the murder of Maxine Brown. The next day, November 30, Sergeant Hoops again questioned defendant without advising him under Miranda. This time, defendant said that Hillhouse had a .357 magnum gun, had used it to shoot an old white broad, and had also taken the victim's car. Sergeant Hoops then contacted Deputy Michael Griggs of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, who informed him of some of the details of Maxine Brown's killing. Griggs mentioned that Brown's credit card had been used to buy a pair of boots from Kinney's Shoe Store. In a telephone conversation a few hours later, Griggs gave Hoops certain details regarding the boots. At that point, Hoops walked over to defendant and removed his boots to see if they matched Griggs's description of the boots that had been bought with the victim's credit card. After asking why Hoops was taking the boots, defendant volunteered that he had bought them and had a receipt. Defendant then said, Well, I changed my mind. They were a gift. Sergeant Hoops did not at any time ask defendant any questions about the boots. Later that same day, November 30, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Griggs and Sergeant Stoner went to the Ontario sheriff's station to interview defendant. The deputies questioned defendant twice. Before the first interview, which was not tape-recorded, Stoner advised defendant of his Miranda rights by reading from a standard admonition card issued by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Defendant indicated he understood his rights, did not want an attorney at that time, and wished to speak to the officers without an attorney present. The second interview on November 30 was tape-recorded. Before questioning defendant, Sergeant Stoner orally advised defendant of his constitutional rights by reading them from a form. Stoner misread one line on the form. The form stated: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, free of charge. Instead, Stoner told defendant: If you hire a lawyer one will be appointed to represent you before any questions free of charge. Before this oral advisement, Sergeant Stoner had given defendant a card that listed his constitutional rights; defendant signed the card immediately after the advisement. The next day, December 1, 1984, the deputies questioned defendant in a tape-recorded session. There was another tape-recorded interview in February 1985. Each interview was preceded by an advisement, and waiver, of defendant's constitutional rights.
(2) Defendant argues that his uncounseled statements to Sergeant Hoops on November 29, 1984, were obtained in violation of his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal Constitution and should have been suppressed. The Attorney General asserts that the issue was waived and, in any event, no constitutional violation occurred. We agree that the issue was waived. At the beginning of the hearing on defendant's nonstatutory motion to exclude certain testimony, the prosecutor described the motion as directed towards the statements ... that were taken by [Sergeant] Hoops.... Defense counsel agreed with this statement, and Sergeant Hoops was called as a witness and examined by both sides. But defense counsel never made clear on what grounds he sought to exclude defendant's responses to Sergeant Hoops's questions on November 29, 1984, as Evidence Code section 353 requires. (See People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 188 [279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949]; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 906 [245 Cal. Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395].) The focus of argument at the conclusion of the court hearing shifted to the testimony of other witnesses, and the trial court did not rule on the admissibility of defendant's statements to Sergeant Hoops. Defense counsel never argued to the trial court that those statements should be suppressed. When Hoops testified at trial, defense counsel failed to object to his testimony on constitutional grounds. Accordingly, we conclude the issue was waived. ( People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247, 270, fn. 13 [256 Cal. Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610].) (3a) Defendant alternatively contends that if the issue was waived, the failure to preserve it demonstrates his counsel's ineffective representation. The constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is violated when an attorney fails to perform as a reasonably competent attorney, and it is reasonably probable that, absent counsel's deficiencies, a more favorable result would have been obtained. ( Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 [80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052]; In re Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 945, 950 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 269, 838 P.2d 1222]; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 449 [6 Cal. Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388]; People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 33 [252 Cal. Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249].) Here, it is not reasonably probable that if defense counsel had pursued the Fifth and Sixth Amendment objections defendant now urges on appeal, there would have been a more favorable result. Defendant's Sixth Amendment theory is that, because his arrest arose from a case pending in San Bernardino County in which he had requested and obtained a court-appointed attorney, Sergeant Hoops violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by questioning him outside the presence of his counsel. (4) The purpose of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is to `protec[t] the unaided layman at critical confrontations' with his `expert adversary,' the government, after `the adverse positions of government and defendant have solidified' with respect to a particular alleged crime. ( McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991) 501 U.S. ___, ___ [115 L.Ed.2d 158, 168, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 2209], original italics.) Thus, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific. ( Id. at p. ___ [115 L.Ed.2d at p. 166, 111 S.Ct. at p. 2207].) (3b) Here, that right had not attached when defendant was questioned by Sergeant Hoops, because at that time adversary criminal judicial proceedings had not yet commenced in this case. Although defendant had obtained counsel in a case that was unrelated to this case, because defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel in this case had not attached it could not be violated. (5) Defendant also contends that his attorney was incompetent for not arguing that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated by Sergeant Hoops's failure to advise him of his Miranda rights before asking him about the whereabouts of Frank Hillhouse. Generally, Miranda advisements must be given by law enforcement officers before any custodial interrogation. ( Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 478-479 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 725-726, 86 S.Ct. 1602].) Here, Sergeant Hoops's inquiry regarding Hillhouse was not interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. Not every question directed by an officer to a person in custody amounts to an interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. The standard is whether under all the circumstances involved in a given case, the questions are `reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.' ( United States v. Booth (9th Cir.1981) 669 F.2d 1231, 1237.) This is an objective standard. The subjective intent of the [officer] is relevant but not conclusive. [Citation.] The relationship of the question asked to the crime suspected is highly relevant. [Citation.] ( United States v. Gonzalez-Marez (9th Cir.1985) 752 F.2d 1485, 1489; accord, e.g., United States v. Talbott (4th Cir.1990) 902 F.2d 1129, 1134.) As Sergeant Hoops's testimony indicates, his inquiry regarding the whereabouts of Hillhouse was designed to elicit information about Hillhouse, not defendant. There is no indication in the record before us that the inquiry was at all relevant to any charge for which defendant was then in custody or any crime of which he was then suspected. Accordingly, Sergeant Hoops was not required to advise defendant of his rights under Miranda, and defendant's counsel did not render ineffective assistance in failing to raise this issue.
As mentioned earlier, before questioning defendant on November 30, 1984, Sergeant Stoner advised defendant of his Miranda rights by reading them from a form. The full text of one of the rights stated: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, free of charge. (Italics added.) Stoner, however, misread this; he omitted the three italicized words, instead telling defendant: If you hire a lawyer one will be appointed to represent you before any questions free of charge. (6) Defendant contends this misreading invalidated the Miranda warnings, thus requiring suppression of the statements obtained as a result. We reject defendant's contention for several reasons. First, 15 to 20 minutes before the tape-recorded interview in which Sergeant Stoner misread the advisement, defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda by Sergeant Stoner in a manner he does not assert was inaccurate. Second, defendant indicated in writing immediately after the misadvisement that he understood his rights as set forth on an admonition card, and he signed the admonition card. With respect to the one right at issue here, the card correctly specified: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, free of charge. Defendant does not argue misadvisement in this respect. Third, the United States Supreme Court has stressed that `the rigidity of Miranda [does not] exten[d] to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant,' and that `no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures.' ( Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) 492 U.S. 195, 202-203 [106 L.Ed.2d 166, 176-177, 109 S.Ct. 2875], quoting California v. Prysock (1981) 453 U.S. 355, 359 [69 L.Ed.2d 696, 701, 101 S.Ct. 2806].) Under the circumstances, the proper warnings that immediately preceded Sergeant Stoner's misreading of one of the rights adequately advised defendant of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda.
(7) We reject defendant's contention that his December 1, 1984, interrogation violated his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the federal Constitution. That right, as we explained earlier, is offense-specific. In this case, that right had not attached when the police questioned defendant on December 1, because criminal proceedings against defendant in this case had not commenced; charges were not filed until December 5, 1984. The fact that defendant had obtained counsel in a case that was unrelated to this case did not implicate the Sixth Amendment, because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific. Accordingly, there was no violation of the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and it was not ineffective for counsel not to argue there was such a violation.