Opinion ID: 2625630
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's challenge to statements he made in the patrol car

Text: Defendant contends his spontaneous statements made en route to the police station on August 7, 1993, were similarly involuntary because he was mentally disturbed at the time he made the statements. In response to an ambiguous challenge to the voluntariness of statements defendant made in Officer Fritz's patrol vehicle, the trial court found that these statements were freely and voluntarily given. In addition, according to the trial court, although defendant was not given Miranda advisements, his statements were made spontaneously and were not the product of custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that these spontaneous statements were admissible. The trial court also stated that based upon its personal observation of Officer Fritz as he testified, it found that the officer was a believable and credible witness. Defendant again contends his unbalanced mental state is evidenced by his conduct in contacting the police and in his repetitive and rambling statements made while he was seated in Officer Fritz's patrol car. Fritz did not describe defendant's statements as rambling or incoherent. Defendant himself testified that he said nothing at all in the patrol car, whether rambling or otherwise, other than to inquire whether the officers had a warrant. Fritz credibly testified that he did nothing more than sit and listen to defendant. There is no evidence of any official coercion or of exploitation of defendant's youth or asserted inexperience. Defendant's claimed psychological vulnerabilities do not suggest his statements were involuntary. (See People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1403 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973]; People v. Smith, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 502.) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements defendant made in the police car.