Opinion ID: 4198315
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: April 20 and April 27 Statements

Text: Petrocelli contends that the use at trial of his statements to the detectives on April 20 and April 27 violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Prosecutor Laxalt used Petrocelli’s statement that his killing of Barker was an “accident” to impeach Petrocelli’s testimony that the Wilson shooting was also an accident. Laxalt also impeached Petrocelli by confronting him with various inconsistencies between his statements and his trial testimony. Petrocelli contends that he invoked his right to counsel on April 19, and that his statements taken on that date and thereafter were therefore taken in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Petrocelli’s counsel was appointed on April 20 but was not present at the interrogations on April 20 and 27. Assuming without deciding that Petrocelli’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment right was violated, the rule is well established that a voluntary statement taken in violation of the Fifth or Sixth Amendment may be used for impeachment. See Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 345–46 (1990); United States v. Gomez, 725 F.3d 1121, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2013). Because the State used the statements at issue only for impeachment, Petrocelli’s contention fails. Petrocelli next contends that his April 20 and 27 statements were involuntary and thus that their admission was unconstitutional. Statements are unconstitutionally involuntary when a “‘defendant’s will was overborne’ by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession.” 26 PETROCELLI V. BAKER Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434 (2000) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973)). Petrocelli contends that his statements were involuntary because they were “obtained by inducements.” “Inducements to cooperate are not improper . . . unless under the total circumstances it is plain that they have overborne the free will of the suspect.” United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, there is no indication that Petrocelli’s will was overborne. Before making statements on April 20, Petrocelli told officers he had several “preconditions.” Sergeant Dickson testified that Petrocelli was told that they would do what they could, but that no promises were made. His interrogators’ partial compliance with his preconditions, while perhaps an inducement to talk, hardly constituted an overbearing of his will. Petrocelli also contends that his April 20 and 27 statements were involuntary because, on April 19, Sergeant Barnes told him that he thought talking to the detectives “could do . . . nothing but help.” In Henry v. Kernan, 197 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 1999), we held that a confession was involuntary when the interrogating officer ignored a suspect’s clear invocation of his right to counsel and stated, “Listen, what you tell us we can’t use against you right now.” Id. at 1027. We noted that the officers’ refusal to cease questioning in the face of repeated requests for counsel “generate[d] a feeling of helplessness” and that the officers deliberately violated Miranda in order to obtain a statement they could use for impeachment purposes. Id. at 1028–29. The circumstances of the Henry interrogation are significantly different from those of Petrocelli’s interrogation. PETROCELLI V. BAKER 27 As discussed above, Petrocelli never clearly invoked his right to counsel on April 19. When Petrocelli was asked if he was requesting a lawyer, he responded “no.” The officers’ attempts to clarify whether Petrocelli was invoking his rights differentiate the April 19 interrogation from the Henry interrogation, both because they likely reduced the feeling of helplessness that concerned us in Henry and because they suggest the detectives were not attempting deliberately to violate Miranda. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Sergeant Barnes’ remark was not sufficiently coercive to render Petrocelli’s April 20 and 27 statements involuntary. 3. Jury Instruction on Premeditation and Deliberation Petrocelli contends that the jury instruction defining “premeditation” and “deliberation” violated due process by collapsing the two requirements and relieving the State of its burden of proving that the killing was both deliberate and premeditated. See Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700, 712–15 (Nev. 2000); Polk v. Sandoval, 503 F.3d 903, 910–11 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled in part by Babb v. Lozowsky, 719 F.3d 1019, 1028–30 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court concluded that Petrocelli had not exhausted this claim and required Petrocelli either to abandon the claim or risk dismissal of his petition. Faced with this choice, Petrocelli filed a notice of abandonment “of all unexhausted claims.” Petrocelli contends that the district court erroneously determined that the claim was unexhausted. “Exhaustion requires the petitioner to ‘fairly present’ his claims to the highest court of the state.” Cooper v. Neven, 641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999)). Petrocelli raised this 28 PETROCELLI V. BAKER jury instruction claim in his third state habeas petition, but he did not appeal the state district court’s denial of the claim to the Nevada Supreme Court. Petrocelli argues that his failure to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court should be excused, contending that he could not have raised the claim until our decision in Polk in 2007, when we held that a jury instruction collapsing the premeditation and deliberation elements of first-degree murder violates the Due Process Clause. Polk, 503 F.3d at 904. This argument is unpersuasive in light of Petrocelli’s having raised this claim in the state district court, before we decided Polk, and in light of his assertion that this claim was based “on clearly established and long existing federal law, namely Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) and Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985).”