Opinion ID: 1161781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: violation of defendant's miranda warnings

Text: Neither Officer Martinsen nor any of the others who participated in the custodial interrogation after defendant's arrest could speak Spanish. Officer Martinsen was aware that defendant's primary language was Spanish, yet never asked defendant whether he wished to have a Spanish speaking interpreter present. However, the court granted such a request for the trial. The defendant has an IQ of 80 and a vocabulary at the third grade level. The defendant contends that, although he had some knowledge of English, he did not understand the technical terms that Officer Martinsen used nor did he understand all of the questions that Martinsen asked. In particular, defendant contends he did not understand Officer Martinsen when he attempted to explain what a lawyer was and did. To satisfy Miranda, the State must show that defendant understood his rights and intelligently and knowingly relinquished those rights before any custodial interrogation began. State v. Rivera, 152 Ariz. 507, 513, 733 P.2d 1090, 1096 (1987). Relevant to that proof are the `defendant's background, experience and conduct.' Id. ( quoting State v. Montes, 136 Ariz. 491, 495, 667 P.2d 191, 195 (1983)). We might be persuaded by defendant's allegations were it not for the fact that the police taped defendant's conversation with Officer Martinsen. The trial court used the tape in reaching its decision as to whether or not to suppress the statements. The tape is part of the record in this court and we also listened to it. In addition, the record contains a reporter's transcript of the tape which, as the trial court noted, was an accurate transcript. The transcript reads in part: LM [OFFICER MARTINSEN]: I didn't identify myself, I'm Larry Martinsen. Joe, just in the brief couple minutes we were in the room prior to turning on the tape recorder, ah, you indicated number one that you have no objections to this interview being tape recorded, is that right? JO [DEFENDANT JOSE ORTIZ]: Yes. LM: O.K. Speak up so that the tape can hear you. JO: Yes. LM: And, you also understood that you're under arrest at this time for homicide, for murder? JO: Yes.       LM: And you're understanding these words that I'm saying to you? JO: Yes. LM: O.K. If at any time you don't understand what I'm asking you, you ask for an explanation, okay? LM: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to the presence of an attorney to assist you prior to questioning and be with you during questioning if you so desire. If you cannot afford an attorney, you have the right to have an attorney appointed for you prior to questioning. Okay, do you understand those rights? JO: Yes. LM: Okay, you understand that you don't have to say anything? LM: Ah, you understand that you can have an attorney present prior to questioning and during questioning if you want one? JO: No. LM: You don't understand that? Okay, basically what I'm telling you is that if you want an attorney prior to making a statement one would be appointed for you and be ah, be counseled before the statement and he could be present during the statement. Okay, you understand that now? JO: Yes. LM: Okay. And do you understand that if you cannot afford an attorney, an attorney would be appointed for you at no charge? JO: Yes.       LM: O.K. How long have you spoke English Joe? JO: Ah, I've been here about fifteen years. LM: Okay. Have you spoken English ... JO: Before? LM: ... during that time? Fifteen years? JO: Yes. LM: Ah, did you speak English prior to that time? JO: No, it's for work and you know, if you have to go to the store and stuff. LM: O.K. Have you attended any schools in the United States? JO: Yes. LM: Where have you attended schools? JO: At ah, I went to ah, from third grade to eighth grade at Imes School, you know, you know, (inaudible) in Glendale.       LM: O.K. Did you go to high school? JO: One year, Apollo. LM: And you went to Apollo High School one year. JO: Right. LM: O.K. and you, during that time you were able to read and write in English? JO: Yes.       LM: (Clears throat). Who is Anna Ramirez? JO: She used to be my girlfriend. LM: And when was she your girlfriend? JO: Huh? LM: When was she your girlfriend? JO: Oh, when we in school. High school. LM: And for how long? JO: It was gonna be six years. LM: O.K. Now I understand that you and Anna, in February, were having problems in your relationship? JO: Yes.       LM: ... the day the shooting occurred. You went up there. You said it was early in the morning? JO: Early in the morning. LM: Okay. Ah, you're driving the LTD? JO: Yes. LM: And, from the time that you drive into the parking lot, tell me what happened. Where did you go? JO: I stopped, you know, she parked her car and the I... I ... I parked against this, this other car, this other lot, ah ... space. I ... I stopped right there and then I go, how long it's gonna be you don't want to talk me, goes, no I don't want to talk to you. Come on, I wanna, you know, you gotta talk to me. She goes, no. Please, well if you don't want to talk to me then let me know where you are least, you know, I could have a (inaudible) or something, you know, no because, you know, you ... you didn't even give me a reason why and stuff.       LM: Okay and then you went back to talk to her? JO: I went back to talk to her and then she didn't .. . didn't want to talk and then she goes just tell me where you're at, and she goes, no I'm not gonna tell you and then I go, come on, please, and then, and then I ... I lost my mind and started shooting. LM: Okay, and that's when you fired shots at her? JO: Yes. LM: How many shots did you fire? JO: About six. LM: Okay. Did you fire `em all? JO: No. After listening to the tape, we are satisfied that not only did the defendant understand what Officer Martinsen said to him, but that he made his statements voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly. We find no error.