Opinion ID: 2621092
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Readmonishing Defendant of his Miranda Rights

Text: Detective Lean read defendant his Miranda rights at 12:30 p.m. on May 7, 1975, and Investigator Martinwho was advised the sheriffs office had already read defendant his rightsdid not readmonish defendant approximately five hours later prior to conducting the interview in which defendant confessed. The trial court found that Investigator Martin was not required to readmonish defendant of his rights. Defendant claims a violation of his rights under Miranda, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because he was not readvised of his rights prior to Investigator Martin's subsequent interrogation. If a defendant is subsequently interrogated, readvisement is unnecessary where the subsequent interrogation is `reasonably contemporaneous' with the prior knowing and intelligent waiver. [Citations.] The courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of time that has passed since the waiver, any change in the identity of the interrogator or the location of the interview, any official reminder of the prior advisement, the suspect's sophistication or past experience with law enforcement, and any indicia that he subjectively understands and waives his rights. [Citations.] ( People v. Mickle (1991) 54 Cal.3d 140, 170, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290 [readvisement unnecessary where defendant twice received and twice waived Miranda rights 36 hours before].) The approximately five hours that had elapsed did not reduce the effectiveness of defendant's initial waiver, particularly where defendant was mentally alert, spoke freely, and understood what was going on in the subsequent interrogation. Defendant also remained in the same room for the ongoing interviews with the detectives and investigator. Moreover, there was some evidence that defendant had prior experience with police based on citations and warnings he received from the police before 1975. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the fact that defendant was a minor did not in and of itself require the police to readvise the defendant of his Miranda rights if the defendant had previously made a knowing and intelligent waiver. ( In re Frank C, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 714, 188 Cal. Rptr. 68 [on the record before us there is no reason to assume the minor did not understand [his Miranda rights] when first given to him or he had already forgotten the admonitions of an hour before or that he had invoked his rights or he did not understand he had already invoked them or he did not understand he was waiving them].) Moreover, although Detectives Lean and Christensen and Investigator Martin took turns interviewing defendant, this change in the identities of the interrogators does not alter the reasonably contemporaneous nature of the subsequent interrogation, which was part of an ongoing and cooperative process. Thus, we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, the detectives were not required to readvise defendant of his Miranda rights in a subsequent interrogation which we find was `reasonably contemporaneous' with defendant's initial knowing and intelligent waiver. ( People v. Mickle, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 170, 284 Cal.Rptr. 511, 814 P.2d 290.)