Opinion ID: 2575945
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the motion and evidentiary hearing

Text: [¶ 17] The appellant was interviewed by law enforcement the morning of August 17, 2002. On March 11, 2003, the appellant's trial counsel filed a Motion to Suppress, challenging the voluntariness of the appellant's statements during that interview because the appellant was intoxicated.... The district court held an evidentiary hearing March 27, 2003, at which hearing the prosecution called three witnesses: Sheriff's Deputy Jason Love, Detention Officer Brad Freeman and Detective John Elliott. The appellant's trial counsel cross-examined each of these witnesses, but did not call any additional witnesses on behalf of the appellant. The prosecution also offered several exhibits during the hearing (including a videotape of the appellant at the detention center, book in forms completed at the detention center, a Miranda Rights form and waiver, and the tape-recorded interview with the appellant), which exhibits the district court admitted into evidence. [¶ 18] Officer Love testified that he and another officer arrested the appellant for the instant offense at about 8:39 a.m. on August 17, 2002. The officers handcuffed the appellant's hands behind his back (each officer also had a hand on the appellant's arm for security purposes) and the appellant walked one hundred-fifty to two hundred feet to a patrol vehicle. Officer Love detected a slight odor of alcohol on the appellant, but testified that the appellant walked without difficulty and did not stumble or stagger. The appellant made a few statements on the way to the detention center and according to Officer Love, the appellant was logical and did not slur his speech. At the detention center, Officer Love asked the appellant for basic information such as his height, weight, address, telephone number, birth date, social security number, occupation, and the appellant's father's address and phone number, which information the appellant provided without hesitation or confusion. Officer Love then walked with the appellant to the sheriff's office for the interview and, according to Officer Love, the appellant did not exhibit any balance deficiencies while standing or walking. Officer Love testified that the appellant complied with the officers' directives at all relevant times, and Officer Love did not observe any signs that the appellant was intoxicated. Officer Love interacted with the appellant twice after that day, and noted that the appellant's speech and mannerisms on the two subsequent occasions did not differ from what the officer observed on August 17, 2002. [¶ 19] Officer Freeman testified that at 9:10 a.m. on August 17, 2002, he booked the appellant into the detention center. Officer Freeman performed a pat down of the appellant's entire body for contraband and weapons, and asked the appellant several screening questions. [7] According to Officer Freeman, the appellant did not stagger, lose his balance, or slur his speech at any time, and the appellant responded logically, accurately, and without hesitation to Officer Freeman's inquiries. Officer Freeman did not smell alcohol on the appellant and saw no signs of any kind that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; accordingly, Officer Freeman did not ask the appellant if he had consumed any alcohol and did not perform a breathalyzer test or a gaze nystagmus test. Officer Freeman subsequently interacted with the appellant five times per week (between August 17, 2002, and March 27, 2003) and did not observe the appellant act any differently than he did August 17th. [¶ 20] Detective Elliott began interviewing the appellant in the sheriff's office squad room at 9:29 a.m. and concluded the interview at 9:46 a.m. [8] By this time, the detective had spoken to neighbors and such who stated the appellant had been drinking some the previous evening. Detective Elliott examined the appellant's eyes, listened to his speech at the detention center, and observed the appellant walk; the detective concluded that the appellant was not intoxicated, nor did the detective observe any signs of intoxication during the interview. [¶ 21] The detective advised the appellant of his Miranda rights prior to the interview, and according to the detective, the appellant verbally indicated that he understood these rights and also later initialed and signed a Miranda Rights form [9] indicating he understood, and agreed to waive, these rights. [10] The detective tape-recorded the interview, and we have previously summarized the statements the appellant made during the interview. The tone of the interview is perhaps best reflected by the detective's first substantive question to the appellant: Okay ah Robert would you like to tell me your side of the story, what happened? It is apparent from a transcript of the interview that the appellant was responsive and gave coherent, detailed answers to the detective's questions and that the appellant was able to converse with the detective. The following colloquy further illustrates the appellant's ability to understand the nature and consequences of his statements: ELLIOTT: So the argument was still in full bloom and going strong and  SILER: Yes it was ELLIOTT: So then what happened? SILER: I don't know if I dare say ELLIOTT: Okay. What did ah, what did the guy with you do? SILER: He says, well no I ain't, I ain't going to ELLIOTT: Okay. So ah do you want to end this conversation or ... SILER: Yeah, until I talk to an attorney. ELLIOTT: Okay SILER: If, if they want to give me one if not I don't give a shit ELLIOTT: Alright, it's totally up to you if you want to [talk to] us but if you want [to] talk to an attorney we need to conclude this conversation right now. You know what I mean? SILER: I'm not trying, I'm not going to try and bail out of this, I'm guilty I know it ELLIOTT: Okay ah but do you want to stop the conversation now is what I'm asking. I can't ask you any questions okay? What do you want to do? SILER: Well in fact I'll tell you. Piss on it. I don't give a shit. I got nothing to lose. ELLIOTT: So you don't want an attorney at this time? SILER: No, piss on it. Notably, the appellant also addressed his level of intoxication at the time of the stabbing (roughly almost four hours prior to the interview): ELLIOTT: ... Ah have you, had you been drinking all night? SILER: No ELLIOTT: Okay had you been sleeping any? Prior to this happening? SILER: In fact yeah. I slept about 2 hours. ELLIOTT: Okay. Were you ah were you at that time intoxicated? Did you feel like you were intoxicated, had you been drinking that much? SILER: No Detective Elliott did not specifically ask the appellant how much alcohol he had consumed the previous evening. [¶ 22] The district court ultimately denied the appellant's suppression motion. The district court found that there was evidence that the [appellant] may have consumed some alcoholic beverages the night before, but that the appellant was calm, alert, attentive and responsive and exhibited no outward signs of being under the influence of alcohol to the extent contended by [his trial counsel] during the interview; therefore, considering the applicable legal factors, the district court concluded that the State had met its burden of proof in establishing that the statements of the [appellant] were made voluntarily. The statements at issue were later admitted into evidence at trial.