Opinion ID: 1190445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged ineffectual waiver of Miranda rights

Text: (4) Defendant contends his September 11 waiver of his rights under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, was ineffectual because he was not specifically informed of the possibility he could receive the death penalty if found guilty of the Brice killings. We reject the contention for two reasons. Defendant failed to raise the ineffective-waiver argument in support of his motion under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436. The argument is therefore waived. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) We also reject the contention on the merits. Under Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, a custodial suspect must be warned prior to interrogation that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. ( Id., at p. 444 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 706-707].) Defendant acknowledges no court has adopted his view that the Miranda warning should be expanded to include possible punishment. In Colorado v. Spring (1987) 479 U.S. 564 [93 L.Ed.2d 954, 107 S.Ct. 851], the court rejected the defendant's contention that his Miranda waiver was invalid because he had not been advised of all crimes about which he might be questioned. The Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege.... [¶] ... [¶] ... `[W]e have never read the Constitution to require that the police supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.' [Citation.] Here, the additional information could affect only the wisdom of a Miranda waiver, not its essentially voluntary and knowing nature.... [¶] This Court's holding in Miranda specifically required that the police inform a criminal suspect that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says may be used against him. There is no qualification of this broad and explicit warning. ( Id., at pp. 574 and 576-577 [93 L.Ed.2d at pp. 966-968], brackets and italics in original, fn. omitted.) If a suspect need not be informed of the possible charges against him, there is no basis for concluding that he must be advised of the possible punishment for those charges if proven. Defendant's Miranda waiver was constitutionally sufficient.