Opinion ID: 1205096
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Evidence of Refusal

Text: (8) Defendant urges that in the circumstances of this case, admission of his refusal to stand in a lineup denied him due process and violated his privilege against self-incrimination and his rights to counsel and to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. (Cal. Const., art. I, งง 7(a), 15, 17; U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th, & 14th Amends.) We reject his contentions. The privilege against self-incrimination extends to compelled testimonial or communicative disclosures by an accused, but not to real or physical evidence derived from him. ( Schmerber v. California (1966) 384 U.S. 757, 760-765 [16 L.Ed.2d 908, 913-916, 86 S.Ct. 1826]; People v. Ellis (1966) 65 Cal.2d 529, 533-537 [55 Cal. Rptr. 385, 421 P.2d 393] [voice identification testimony not protected by self-incrimination privilege].) A defendant's appearance, as manifested in a lineup, is one such type of nontestimonial, physical evidence. Accordingly, it is not protected by the privilege ( United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 221-223 [18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1153-1155, 87 S.Ct. 1926]), and evidence of a defendant's refusal to participate in a lineup is admissible at his trial. ( People v. Huston (1989) 210 Cal. App.3d 192, 216-217 [258 Cal. Rptr. 393]; People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal. App.3d 897, 910 [91 Cal. Rptr. 786, 52 A.L.R.3d 875] [defendant's refusal, during show-up at police station, to don jacket and cap allegedly worn by robber not protected by self-incrimination privilege]; see also Quintana v. Municipal Court (1987) 192 Cal. App.3d 361, 365-366 [237 Cal. Rptr. 397] [defendant's refusal to submit to blood-alcohol test not protected by self-incrimination privilege], citing South Dakota v. Neville (1983) 459 U.S. 553, 562-564 [74 L.Ed.2d 748, 757-759, 103 S.Ct. 916].) (9a) Defendant argues that evidence of his refusal to participate in the lineup nonetheless should have been suppressed because he was denied his right to counsel during a critical stage of the prosecution against him. He bases this argument on the fact that jail authorities failed to afford him an opportunity to meet with Attorney Nancy Kramer when she arrived at the jail asking to see him. He relies on People v. Bustamante (1981) 30 Cal.3d 88 [177 Cal. Rptr. 576, 634 P.2d 927] ( Bustamante ), in which we held that the California Constitution affords a suspect a right to counsel at a preindictment lineup ( id. at p. 102), and People v. Houston (1986) 42 Cal.3d 595 [230 Cal. Rptr. 141, 724 P.2d 1166] ( Houston ), in which we held that, under the right to counsel afforded by the California Constitution, a suspect in custody must be informed promptly of his attorney's arrival at the detention facility, and must then be allowed to see the attorney if he so chooses before questioning begins or resumes ( id. at p. 610). Bustamante, supra, 30 Cal.3d 88, does not assist defendant, inasmuch as counsel was appointed for him in advance of the lineup. Nor does Houston, supra, 42 Cal.3d 595, benefit defendant, since defendant was not subjected to questioning. (See People v. Mattson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 826, 868-869 [268 Cal. Rptr. 802, 789 P.2d 983] [ Houston rule is limited to the facts of that case.].) In any event, the exclusionary rules in both Bustamante and Houston were abrogated by the passage of Proposition 8, an initiative adopted by the voters of this state on June 8, 1982. Among other provisions, Proposition 8 added section 28 to article I of the state Constitution. That section abrogated judicial decisions requiring exclusion of relevant evidence from criminal proceedings, except as compelled by the federal Constitution or other statutes not implicated here. ( People v. May (1988) 44 Cal.3d 309, 315-319 [243 Cal. Rptr. 369, 748 P.2d 307].) (10)(See fn. 9.), (9b) As defendant's crime occurred after the adoption of Proposition 8, the exclusionary rules of Bustamante and Houston have no application to this case. [9] Defendant asserts a violation of his federal constitutional right to counsel, chiefly by way of attempting to distinguish Kirby v. Illinois (1972) 406 U.S. 682 [32 L.Ed.2d 411, 92 S.Ct. 1877] and Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475 U.S. 412 [89 L.Ed.2d 410, 106 S.Ct. 1135]. Kirby held that the federal constitutional right to counsel does not attach until the initiation of judicial criminal proceedings. ( United States v. Gouveia (1984) 467 U.S. 180, 187-188 [81 L.Ed.2d 146, 153-154, 104 S.Ct. 2292]; Kirby v. Illinois, supra, 406 U.S. at pp. 689, 691 [32 L.Ed.2d at pp. 417, 418] (plur. opn. of Stewart, J.) (conc. opn. of Burger, C.J.).) Burbine reaffirmed that the right to counsel attaches with the commencement of judicial proceedings against an accused. In Burbine, the court concluded that police officers' failure to notify the accused โ who was in custody but had not been formally charged โ of his attorney's attempts to telephone him neither invalidated his waiver of Miranda rights nor impaired his right to counsel. ( Moran v. Burbine, supra, 475 U.S. at pp. 421-428 [89 L.Ed.2d at pp. 420-425].) Defendant attempts to distinguish these cases by noting that (unlike Kirby) he had counsel and (unlike Burbine) he did not waive the right to counsel or his self-incrimination privilege. These distinctions do not make a difference because appearance in a lineup does not implicate the privilege against self-incrimination. (11) Defendant characterizes his conversation with Detective Shipp, during which he refused to stand in the lineup, as custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436. It was not. Interrogation consists of express questioning or of words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. ( Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 300-301 [64 L.Ed.2d 297, 307-308, 100 S.Ct. 1682].) Detective Shipp's statements to defendant were limited to conveying information about the proposed procedure and ascertaining whether or not defendant would participate. This neither required readvisement of rights nor amounted to interrogation in violation of Miranda. The fact that defendant's responses may have inculpated him was merely incidental to his unprivileged refusal to cooperate in a nontestimonial procedure. Defendant has failed to establish that admission of the fact of his refusal to stand in the lineup, and the statements by which he did so, violated any of his rights under the state and federal constitutions.