Opinion ID: 1678139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: circumstances of escamilla's confession

Text: As we have previously stated, after arriving at police headquarters, Escamilla was taken to an interview room by Officer Standley. Standley testified that he had a conversation with Escamilla and that it was not questioning or interrogating. Standley stated that Escamilla was not in custody and that Escamilla indicated that he understood he was there voluntarily, although Standley did not recall ever telling him that he was free to go. Sergeant Domgard arrived at the interview room and began questioning Escamilla at approximately 1:20 p.m. Domgard was aware that Escamilla had previously been convicted of stabbing a man who had sexually assaulted him as a youth. Domgard was also told that Escamilla appeared to have bloodstains on his pants. Domgard testified that Escamilla was not afraid or nervous, but did appear to be concerned. After they spoke for some time about where Escamilla had been that morning and the evening before, Domgard told Escamilla that a neighbor of the victim's had observed someone matching Escamilla's description running away from the victim's residence that morning. He also told Escamilla that the victim was much like the person that had victimized Escamilla in Scottsbluff and suggested that Escamilla may have had a flashback and stuck the victim. He suggested that Escamilla was himself being victimized, and informed him that the police department had received numerous reports about the victim's possibly enticing young people into his home. Domgard told Escamilla that there was quite a bit of evidence at the victim's residence that would be able to tie him into the case if he were involved and that Escamilla should tell him the truth because later he might not have the opportunity. At that point, Escamilla admitted his involvement. Escamilla had not yet received any Miranda warnings. Domgard testified that Escamilla was not in custody prior to his confession, despite the fact that Escamilla had previously been involved in a similar stabbing incident, had bloodstains on his clothing, and might have been in the vicinity of the crime that morning. However, Domgard did not tell Escamilla that he was free to go. The statement with which we are concerned is the formal taped confession which it is admitted was not taken until after Escamilla had received the Miranda warnings. However, it is Escamilla's position that any statement given following the unwarned statement is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed. Therefore, the statement would not have been available for use in any trial had Escamilla pled not guilty. On this issue we agree with the conclusion of the trial court, which found that the totality of the circumstances do not support a finding of undue force or coercion on the part of the police [and that] it cannot be reasonably argued that Escamilla's subsequent confession was involuntary and thus inadmissible. The trial court cited extensively from Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985): Though Miranda requires that the unwarned admission must be suppressed, the admissibility of any subsequent statement should turn in these circumstances solely on whether it is knowingly and voluntarily made. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. at 309, 105 S.Ct. at 1293. It is an unwarranted extension of Miranda to hold that a simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect's ability to exercise his free will, so taints the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period. Id. There is a vast difference between the direct consequences flowing from coercion of a confession by physical violence or other deliberate means calculated to break the suspect's will and the uncertain consequences of disclosure of a `guilty secret' freely given in response to an unwarned but noncoercive question.... Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. at 312, 105 S.Ct. at 1294.