Opinion ID: 2621092
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Request to Speak to His Mother

Text: Defendant argues that he requested to speak to his mother during the interview, thus asserting his Fifth Amendment right. ( People v. Rivera (1985) 41 Cal.3d 388, 394, 221 Cal.Rptr. 562, 710 P.2d 362; People v. Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at pp. 383-384, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793; but see People v. Hector (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 228, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 469.) Defendant testified that he told a detective that he wanted to speak to his mother and that she did not have a phone, to which the detective replied, `Something to [sic ] it was around dinner time and I would have to wait.' Although Detective Lean testified that he did not recall defendant asking to call his mother, defendant maintains he made his request to Investigator Martin who performed a portion of the interview. Defendant has waived this claim by raising it for the first time on appeal. ( People v. Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 892, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712.) Notions of fairness and practicality require that the prosecution be given an opportunity to argue this issue during trial. Without such objection, the parties could not develop the issue or further examine witnesses. Indeed, apart from defendant's self-serving testimony at trial, there was no evidence that defendant in fact requested to talk to his mother during the interview. Detective Lean testified that he did not recall that he or Detective Christensen told defendant he would have to wait before he called his mother. He also testified it was his custom and habit when juveniles requested to speak to their parents or any blood relative, that it was like asking for an attorney and we were to stop our interview at that point. However, he did not recall that being done. To the extent defendant's request was made to Investigator Martin, defendant did not question the investigator at trial whether defendant asked him if he could talk to his mother, nor did defendant testify that he made his request to Investigator Martin. Further, defendant inconsistently testified that he both did and did not continue to talk to the detective after he requested to talk to his mother, which tended to undermine his credibility on this issue. Indeed, as the Attorney General observes, the request that defendant allegedly made to Investigator Martin would have occurred after defendant had given several different versions of the events to detectives, i.e., when Detective Lean went to get dinner for the juveniles around 5:00 p.m. Given that defendant talked to detectives for an extended time without requesting to talk to his mother, [t]here is no indication . . . that appellant's request to see his mother, must `be construed to indicate that the minor suspect desire[d] to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.' ( People v. Maestas (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1499, 1509, 240 Cal.Rptr. 360, quoting People v. Burton, supra, 6 Cal.3d at p. 384, 99 Cal.Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793.) In short, because defendant failed to raise his claim at trial that defendant's request to speak to his mother constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right, we are left with an incomplete record. Thus, we cannot speculate to facts that would have given rise to defendant's claim.