Opinion ID: 2632308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Police softening-up of defendant

Text: Before advising defendant of his constitutional rights, Detective Gaylor commented that there were two sides to every story. According to defendant, that comment was designed to soften him up and induce a confession. In support, he cites this passage from People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 160-161, 141 Cal. Rptr. 698, 570 P.2d 1050: It must be remembered that the purpose of Miranda is to preclude police interrogation unless and until a suspect has voluntarily waived his rights or has his attorney present. When the waiver results from a clever softening-up of a defendant through ... ingratiating conversation, the subsequent decision to waive without a Miranda warning must be deemed to be involuntary for the same reason that an incriminating statement made under police interrogation without a Miranda warning is deemed to be involuntary. The Attorney General in reply correctly observed that the facts here are not at all like Honeycutt, which, as described in People v. Kelly , involved an unrecorded 30-minute, pre-Miranda conversation, discussing mutual acquaintances, past events and finally the victim. ( People v. Kelly (1990) 51 Cal.3d 931, 954, 275 Cal.Rptr. 160, 800 P.2d 516.) In the trial court, defendant unsuccessfully argued that his confession was inadmissible because he did not waive his Miranda rights to counsel and to remain silent. The issue he now raises is differenthe claims that even if he did waive his Miranda rights, that waiver was involuntary. The determination whether a waiver is voluntary is one entrusted to the trial judge, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. (See People v. Kelly, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 950, 275 Cal.Rptr. 160, 800 P.2d 516.) Because defendant failed to raise the voluntariness issue at trial, he cannot raise it now. ( People v. Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 339, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846.) Defendant contends here that the issue is preserved for appeal by his trial court objection to the admissibility of the confession on the ground that he did not waive his Miranda rights. Because such an objection does not ordinarily lead to the presentation of evidence of defendant's background, experience, and conductevidence essential to determining whether a waiver was voluntarywe reject that contention.