Opinion ID: 1238962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: motion to suppress rubio's statement to police

Text: Rubio claims his immaturity and intoxication precluded a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to be silent and his right to have an attorney present during questioning. Whether the statements obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible against a defendant, including a juvenile, rests upon an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. The question is whether the accused in fact, and not merely in form, knowingly and voluntarily decided to forgo his rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. Jahnke v. State, 692 P.2d 911, 923-24 (Wyo.1984); Fare v. Michael C, 442 U.S. 707, 724-25, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 2571-72, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). The totality approach    mandates    inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. This includes evaluation of the juvenile's age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights. Fare, 442 U.S. at 725, 99 S.Ct. at 2571-72. We have recognized that the greatest care must be exercised to assure that the giving of a statement by a juvenile was in fact voluntary and not the product of immaturity, ignorance or coercion. Jahnke, 692 P.2d at 923. Pursuant to the prior decisions of this court, the district court conscientiously held a full evidentiary hearing on the matter. See Hernandez v. State, 577 P.2d 643 (Wyo.1978) and Raigosa v. State, 562 P.2d 1009 (Wyo. 1977). A review of the hearing record reveals no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination. Rubio submits a list of factors which, he argues, demonstrates that his statements were not a product of a free and deliberate choice. He contends he was intoxicated, tired, and frightened at the time of the interrogation. Rubio further argues that his immaturity led him to believe that if he agreed with the officers, they would let him go home. Rubio also contends that the absence of a parent or counsel prevented him from understanding the seriousness of his situation. Neither the intoxication of Rubio at the time the statement was made nor the absence of parent or counsel render a juvenile's statement inadmissible per se. Stone v. State, 745 P.2d 1344, 1348 (Wyo.1987); Jahnke, 692 P.2d at 923; Mayer, 618 P.2d at 129. We review the record to determine whether the district court could reasonably conclude that such factors, given the totality of the circumstances, did not negate Rubio's knowing and voluntary relinquishment of his rights. Rubio testified he had been drinking and was sort of like half drunk while being questioned. However, Dr. Merrell, the psychiatrist called to testify on behalf of Rubio, stated Rubio's history of alcohol abuse indicated a high tolerance. Dr. Merrell testified that because of the high tolerance, Rubio's reported intoxication did not play a major role in Dr. Merrell's evaluation of Rubio's ability to waive his rights. In addition, Sheriff Murphy testified that Rubio sat erect with his hands    folded and did not appear to have been drinking   . Sheriff Murphy also testified that Rubio told the officers he had been drinking earlier that evening, but was not drunk at that time. Rubio's claim that his immaturity prevented an understanding of the consequences of his waiver of rights is equally unpersuasive. At the time of his arrest, Rubio was nearly sixteen, had a job and was living with his girlfriend in Torrington. His parents lived in Colorado. Prior to questioning, Rubio was told he was accused of rape. There is no evidence in the hearing record which indicates Rubio asked to speak with his parents or counsel before or during the questioning. Indeed, after the interview, Rubio told Deputy Kirchhefer that this wasn't the first time that he had been through this. The most persuasive evidence in the record, however, is Rubio's own testimony. When questioned by his attorney at the hearing, Rubio stated: Q Now, you have been sitting in the courtroom here today, and you heard Sheriff Murphy [testify] as to the fact that the officers had read you your Miranda warnings, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, when you were read those rights, did you understand those rights as they were read to you? A Yes. Q And did you know that you had the right to remain silent? A Yes, sir. Q Did you know that you didn't have to talk with them if you didn't want to at that time? A Yes, sir.    Q And did you know if you couldn't afford an attorney, that the state would have to get you one? A Yes, sir. Q And before you had to talk there? A Excuse me? Q Before you had to answer any questions, did you know that you could have an attorney there? A Yes, sir. In this case, not only were Miranda warnings given, but Rubio repeatedly testified he understood them. We cannot gainsay the reasonableness of the district court's determination in light of a record which demonstrates Rubio's only misunderstanding of rights related to those of Miss Vasquez.