Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion to Suppress Defendant's Extrajudicial Statement

Text: Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence of a statement he made to the police during custodial interrogation after his arrest. At the beginning of the interview, he was advised of, and waived, his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602], including his right to remain silent. The People proposed to introduce at trial the opening part of the statement, which contained admissions serving to link defendant to the scene of the crime. The final portion of that part is as follows. [POLICE OFFICER]: Um, well see when [one of defendant's acquaintances] said he saw you and he was talkin' to you at the, there was a little girl standin' next to you. And he's walkin[']... ASHMUS: (Interrupting) you're gonna try to con-, now I ain't saying no more. [POLICE OFFICER]: Pardon? ASHMUS: You ain't gonna, no. I'm not gonna get accused of somethin'. I love people too much. [POLICE OFFICER]: Um hum. ASHMUS: I wouldn't even kill a fly, I'm sorry. [POLICE OFFICER]: Who said anything about killing anybody? ASHMUS: I wouldn't even hurt a fly or kill a fly, I'm sorry, don't say no more (inaudible) [] [POLICE OFFICER]: (Interrupting) Troy, who said any-, who said anything about killing anybody? ASHMUS: The way you guys are talkin' to me, I'm sorry, it's what it sounds like. [POLICE OFFICER]: Nobody said anything about that. How come you're bringing that up[?] ASHMUS: He told me there's a serious offense. [POLICE OFFICER]: Who told you what's a serious offense? ASHMUS: The cop that told, brought me in. [POLICE OFFICER]: The uniformed officer? ASHMUS: Yeah. [POLICE OFFICER]: What did he tell you? ASHMUS: He told, I asked him what is my charge? He says there's been a serious offense occurred and you were a suspect, a sus-, suspect. [POLICE OFFICER]: Um hum. As relevant here, defendant moved to suppress the final portion of the statement, from and including his interruption to the end. He claimed as follows: through the words, now I ain't saying no more, and don't say no more, he effectively invoked his right to silence; as a result, the final portion of the statement  together with the asserted invocations themselves  was inadmissible under Miranda and its progeny. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. The People offered the testimony of witnesses, including the police officer whose questions and comments are quoted above. They also presented the part of the statement they proposed to introduce at trial, both as audiotape-recorded and as transcribed. Defendant did not offer any evidence. Determining in substance that defendant did not effectively invoke his right to silence, the trial court denied the motion. The People later introduced the part of the statement they had proposed, including its final portion, through both audiotape and transcript. (14) Defendant now contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the final portion of the statement. His claim rises or falls with whether he effectively invoked his right to silence. On appeal, a trial court's resolution of such a question is reviewed independently. ( People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 979 [251 Cal. Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475].) So scrutinized, the court's determination here is sound. Within their context  clearly in the transcript and more clearly still on the audiotape  defendant's words cannot reasonably be deemed an invocation of his right to silence. He spoke to his interrogators; he uttered the words in question; and without hesitation he proceeded to speak to them further. He evidently sought to alter the course of the questioning. But he did not attempt to stop it altogether.