Opinion ID: 2614001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether defendant invoked his Miranda rights

Text: (13) We recently have observed that `[t]he scope of our review of constitutional claims of this nature is well established. We must accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if they are substantially supported. [Citations.] However, we must independently determine from the undisputed facts, and those properly found by the trial court, whether the challenged statement was illegally obtained. [Citation.]' ( People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 25 [23 Cal. Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673]; People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247, 263.) (14) As we stated in People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal.4th 405, 440 [20 Cal. Rptr.2d 537, 853 P.2d 992], [u]nder the familiar requirements of Miranda, designed to assure protection of the federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination under `inherently coercive' circumstances, a suspect may not be subjected to custodial interrogation unless he or she knowingly and intelligently has waived the right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney, and to appointed counsel in the event the suspect is indigent. (Citing Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445, 473-474 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706-707, 722-723].) Once having invoked these rights, the accused `is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.' (5 Cal.4th at p. 440, citing Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 [68 L.Ed.2d 378, 385-386, 101 S.Ct. 1880]; see also McNeil v. Wisconsin (1990) 501 U.S. 171, 176-177 [115 L.Ed.2d 158, 167-168, 111 S.Ct. 2204]; Arizona v. Roberson (1988) 486 U.S. 675, 680-682 [100 L.Ed.2d 704, 712-714, 108 S.Ct. 2093]; Michigan v. Mosley (1975) 423 U.S. 96, 104, fn. 10 [46 L.Ed.2d 313, 321, 96 S.Ct. 321].) If, subsequently, assuming there is no break in custody, the police initiate a meeting in the absence of counsel, the suspect's statements are presumed involuntary and are inadmissible as substantive evidence at trial, even if the suspect executes a waiver and the statements would be considered voluntary under traditional standards. ( McNeil v. Wisconsin, supra, 501 U.S. 171, 176-177 [115 L.Ed.2d 158, 167-168]; see Michigan v. Harvey (1990) 494 U.S. 344, 350 [108 L.Ed.2d 293, 302, 110 S.Ct. 1176].) If a suspect indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process, prior to or during questioning, that he or she wishes to consult with an attorney, the defendant may not be interrogated. ( Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 444-445 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 706-707], italics added; id. at pp. 470, 472-474, 477-479 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 721, 722-724, 725-727]; People v. Burton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 375, 383-384 [99 Cal. Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793]; see People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 27; People v. Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247, 271.) We have observed previously that no particular form of words or conduct is necessary on the part of a suspect in order to invoke his or her right to remain silent ( People v. Randall (1970) 1 Cal.3d 948, 955 [83 Cal. Rptr. 658, 464 P.2d 114]), and the suspect may invoke this right by any words or conduct reasonably inconsistent with a present willingness to discuss the case freely and completely. ( People v. Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d 375, 382.) Earlier decisions of this court and the Courts of Appeal have indicated that a request for counsel need not be unequivocal in order to preclude questioning by the police. (See People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 990 [22 Cal. Rptr.2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099]; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 165 [266 Cal. Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857]; People v. Randall, supra, 1 Cal.3d 948, 955.) As we stated in People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 27-28, California decisions have concluded that a defendant may invoke the constitutional right to counsel by such diverse statements or questions as: `Do you think we need an attorney?' and `I guess we need a lawyer' ( People v. Superior Court ( Zolnay ) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 729, 735-736 [125 Cal. Rptr. 798, 542 P.2d 1390]); `Tell me the truth, wouldn't it be best if I had an attorney with me?' ( People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal. App.3d 222, 234 [201 Cal. Rptr. 104]); `I don't know if I should have a lawyer here or what....' ( People v. Russo (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 1172, 1176-1177 [196 Cal. Rptr. 466]); and `Well, maybe I should talk to my attorney, Mr. Corbin' ( People v. Munoz (1978) 83 Cal. App.3d 993, 995-996 [148 Cal. Rptr. 165]). (15a) Defendant relies upon these and similar California decisions in contending that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his statements to the police. (16) Nonetheless, as we previously have recognized, subsequent to the adoption of article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution, we apply federal standards in reviewing a defendant's claim that his or her statements were elicited in violation of Miranda. ( People v. Sims, supra, 5 Cal.4th 405, 440; People v. Markham (1989) 49 Cal.3d 63, 67-71 [260 Cal. Rptr. 273, 775 P.2d 1042].) Subsequent to its decision in Edwards, the United States Supreme Court observed that [t]he rule of [ Edwards ] applies only when the suspect `ha[s] expressed' his wish for the particular sort of lawyerly assistance that is the subject of Miranda. [Citation.] It requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police. ( McNeil v. Wisconsin, supra, 501 U.S. 171, 178 [115 L.Ed.2d 158, 168-169], italics omitted.) Most recently, in Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. ___, ___ [129 L.Ed.2d 362, 368, 114 S.Ct. 2350], in determining that a suspect's remark to Naval Investigative Service agents  Maybe I should talk to a lawyer  was not a request for counsel, the United States Supreme Court has held further that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel. (512 U.S. at p. ___ [129 L.Ed.2d at p. 371].) The court in that case stated: As we have observed, `a statement either is such an assertion of the right to counsel or it is not.' Smith v. Illinois [(1984)] 469 U.S. 91, 97-98.... Although a suspect need not `speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don[]' ... (Souter, J., concurring in judgment), he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect. See Moran v. Burbine 475 U.S. 412, 43, n. 4, 89 L.Ed.2d 410, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (1986) (`the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present only [i]f the individual states that he wants an attorney').... [¶] We decline petitioner's invitation to extend Edwards and require law enforcement officers to cease questioning immediately upon the making of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney. See Arizona v. Roberson, [486 U.S. 675,] 688 ... (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (`the rule of Edwards is our rule, not a constitutional command; and it is our obligation to justify its expansion'). ( Davis v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. ___, ___ [129 L.Ed.2d 362, 371-372].) [W]e are unwilling to create a third layer of prophylaxis to prevent police questioning when the suspect might want a lawyer. Unless the suspect actually requests an attorney, questioning may continue. (512 U.S. at p. ___ [129 L.Ed.2d at p. 373].) (15b) In the present case, defendant did not unequivocally state that he wanted an attorney, but simply asked a question. Moreover, he declined to respond when the police repeated the advisement that he was entitled to an attorney. (See People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 29; People v. Clark, supra, 3 Cal.4th 41, 121.) [7] Viewed in context, defendant's statement simply indicated defendant wished to ascertain whether he had heard the officer correctly. Upon being informed that he had heard correctly, defendant did not make a statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police ( McNeil v. Wisconsin, supra, 501 U.S. 171, 178 [115 L.Ed.2d 158, 169], italics omitted; see Davis v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. ___, ___ [129 L.Ed.2d 362, 371-372]), but merely remained silent. We conclude that, in view of the entire record  including defendant's statements and his disruptive conduct as a whole during and immediately following the arrest (which apparently contributed to his failure to hear completely the officer's initial advisements), the interrogatory nature of defendant's reference to an attorney, the officer's immediate repetition of the advice that had been given, and defendant's failure to respond thereto  there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that defendant's statement did not constitute an invocation of his right to counsel. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to determine whether the evidence obtained in asserted violation of Miranda was prejudicial to the defense. [8]