Opinion ID: 2514475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: The prosecution may not use against a defendant any statements he made during the course of custodial interrogation unless the defendant was given the requisite warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The fact that DeFusco's questioning constituted interrogation is not disputed in this case. We turn, then, to whether the defendant was in custody. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) ( Miranda warnings are required only when there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him `in custody.'). We review a trial court's custody determination de novo. People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 459 (Colo.2002). We laid out the formal test for custody determinations in Matheny: we must objectively determine whether a reasonable person in the suspect's position would believe himself to be deprived of his freedom of action to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Id. at 467. See also People v. Stephenson, 159 P.3d 617, 620 (Colo.2007) (The touchstone of custody is significant curtailment of the defendant's freedom of action that is equivalent to formal arrest.). Factors to be considered include: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the persons present during the interrogation; (3) the words spoken by the officer to the defendant; (4) the officer's tone of voice and general demeanor; (5) the length and mood of the interrogation; (6) whether any limitation of movement or other form of restraint was placed on the defendant during the interrogation; (7) the officer's response to any questions asked by the defendant; (8) whether directions were given to the defendant during the interrogation; and (9) the defendant's verbal or nonverbal response to such directions. Matheny, 46 P.3d at 465-66 (quoting People v. Trujillo, 938 P.2d 117, 124 (Colo.1997)). No single factor is determinative, and the totality of the circumstances must be considered. People v. Dracon, 884 P.2d 712, 717 (Colo.1994). The present case can easily be analogized to our Matheny decision. There, the suspect was confronted at his place of employment and asked, not told to come down to the police station to discuss an ongoing investigation. Matheny, 46 P.3d at 467. His mother met him at the station, where he was told that he was not under arrest and could leave at any time. Id. The suspect then proceeded, in a narrative fashion, to explain to investigators what happened on the night in question. Id. Throughout the interrogation, investigators were completely honest with the suspect and did nothing other than encourage him to tell the truth and warn him of the consequences of lying. Id. The investigators spoke with soft voices, were polite, gave the suspect no directions, and placed no restraint upon him. Id. We concluded that the suspect was not in custody until he was arrested, although investigators intended to persuade the suspect to admit that he was involved in the crime. Id. The interrogation that took place here is similar to that in Matheny. Becker was asked, not told, to accompany DeFusco to the employee lounge to discuss his involvement with the forged prescription. DeFusco testified that he informed Becker that he was not under arrest. [1] The tone of the conversation remained civil throughout. [2] DeFusco was honest with Becker, encouraging him to tell the truth in order to avoid jail time. Becker's story about forging the prescription in the hospital was told in narrative fashion. No restraints were ever used, and DeFusco's weapon was concealed the entire time. The lounge did not have a door, and DeFusco moved around the room during the interview, facing the entryway in an effort to avoid the appearance that Becker was not free to leave. We conclude that an objective person in Becker's position would not have found the restriction on his freedom of action equivalent to a formal arrest. Cf. People v. Minjarez, 81 P.3d 348, 356-57 (Colo.2003) (holding that defendant was in custody because police create[d] an atmosphere equivalent to that of formal arrest when two officers questioned the defendant in a hospital room after directing him to sit in the chair furthest from the locked door; stood between the defendant and the door; were dishonest with the defendant; spoke to the defendant in a confrontational tone; and provided all of the details of the incident in question to the defendant, forcing him to agree).