Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reinitiation of Questioning in the Squad Car.

Text: Defendant argues that the statements made in Modesto to Detective Bennett on May 16 and Dr. Trompetter on May 17 violated Edwards, supra, 451 U.S. at pages 484-485, 101 S.Ct. 1880, because he was not provided an attorney following his unequivocal request for an attorney on May 10, and he did not reinitiate questioning prior to his May 16 and 17 statements. We conclude that no Edwards violation occurred because defendant himself initiated the ensuing dialogue leading to the May 16 and 17 statements.
On May 16, 1990, at 6:20 p.m., Detective Bennett and Deputy Viohl returned to Reno to transport defendant to the Stanislaus County Jail. Defendant and Detective Bennett sat in the back seat of the squad car while Viohl drove. Defendant was restrained with upper body chains and handcuffs. Bennett apologized to defendant for not arriving on May 15, but did not ask him if he still wanted to talk to him. At some point during the trip, Bennett began reading a copy of the May 16, 1990 Modesto Bee newspaper. Defendant asked Bennett for a portion of the paper to read, and Bennett handed him the Metro section of the paper. Bennett explained that he had looked through the Metro section and had not noticed any articles pertaining to the case. But the front page of the section contained an article with the headline Officers to Return Suspect. Defendant took the paper and read it briefly before handing it back with the comment that there was an article about the case. The article stated that defendant would be arraigned for two counts of murder, that he was suspected of repeatedly stabbing Mary and April James on May 6 following a heated argument, and that an autopsy showed that April James had been sexually assaulted after she had been killed. Bennett stated that he was surprised because he had not seen the article in the lower right-hand column of the Metro section. Bennett testified that defendant did not appear to be angry when he handed back the newspaper, and that they had no discussion about the newspaper article. After a quick stop, Bennett moved to the front seat of the car and Deputy Viohl moved to the back. Bennett stated that as the car approached the county line, defendant leaned towards the screen separating the front and back of the squad car and indicated that he was ready to talk to Bennett if he was still interested. Bennett responded that he would prefer to wait until they reached the sheriff's office. No further conversation ensued. Defendant testified that Detective Bennett asked him soon after they entered the car in Nevada whether he wanted to talk to him about what had happened. Defendant replied that he did not. Regarding the newspaper incident, defendant stated that the newspaper was rolled up, as if it had just been delivered. Bennett unwrapped it, and told defendant that he had not read the paper yet and asked him if he wanted to read it. Defendant stated that he replied he didn't care. Bennett flipped through the pages for not more than a minute before handing him the Metro section. Defendant handed the paper back to Bennett immediately after he had read the article. Twenty to 25 minutes later, defendant stated that he told Deputy Bennett he would talk to him. On rebuttal, Detective Bennett asserted that he never asked defendant if defendant wanted to talk to him about the crimes from the time he picked defendant up in Reno until they arrived in Stanislaus County.
Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, no further questioning may take place until an attorney is present, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police. ( Edwards, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880.) This establishes a bright line rule that all questioning must cease after an accused requests counsel. ( Smith v. Illinois (1984) 469 U.S. 91, 98, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488.) An accused `initiates' further communication, exchanges, or conversations of the requisite nature when he speaks words or engages in conduct that can be `fairly said to represent a desire' on his part `to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.' ( People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648, 286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84 ( Mickey ).) In reviewing defendant's Edwards claim, we apply a de novo standard of review to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress the May 16 statement to the degree that the trial court's underlying decision involved a measurement of the facts against the law. (See, e.g., People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 730, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46.) Regarding the trial court's subordinate determinations, we apply independent review to its determinations of law and look for substantial evidence of its determinations of fact. Mixed questions of fact and law we will resolve by the standards above according to whether they are predominantly legal or factual. ( People v. Louis (1986) 42 Cal.3d 969, 985-987, 232 Cal.Rptr. 110, 728 P.2d 180.) We first consider defendant's claims that Detective Bennett asked defendant to discuss the case during the squad car journey from Nevada to California. Detective Bennett asserts that this event did not take place. Defendant does not contest that when he reinitiated questioning with Detective Bennett later in the trip, Bennett asked defendant to wait to give his statement until they reached the police station. In attempting to resolve this factual dispute, the trial court considered the import of Detective Bennett's request to wait until they arrived at the station before defendant gave his statement. The court stated, It seems illogical that the officer would ask him to make a statement well before they got to Stanislaus County, and having asked him to do that, would then not be prepared to take a statement in the car.... [F]or that reason I have accepted the factual circumstances indicated by the detective and Deputy Viohl, and that the officer ... did not ask him in the car ... if he wanted to make a statement prior to talking to his attorney. This factual finding is supported by substantial evidence. Defendant claims, however, that even assuming Detective Bennett never asked defendant if he wanted to speak to him, he nonetheless initiated contact with defendant in violation of Edwards by calculatedly showing him the Metro section of the Modesto Bee newspaper that contained an article about the case, prompting defendant's desire to make a statement. The Attorney General responds that Detective Bennett's actions were inadvertent, as it was defendant himself who requested a section of the paper that Detective Bennett was reading, and Detective Bennett did not see the article about the case prior to giving the paper to defendant. In any event, the Attorney General argues the article was brief, merely contained public information, and did not constitute an attempt to initiate communication about the case. We agree. In assessing defendant's Edwards claims, we inquire into whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there was the requisite coercive activity by the state or its agents and the necessary causal connection between any such activity and the statements in question. ( Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 651, 286 Cal.Rptr. 801, 818 P.2d 84.) There was no coercive activity here. Nor did defendant respond to the newspaper article by offering Detective Bennett any incriminating information. Defendant simply noted that the paper included an article about the case. It was not until later in the trip, when they approached the county line, that defendant stated that he was ready to talk about the case, but even then Bennett requested that defendant wait until they arrive in Modesto. No further conversation about the case occurred. We therefore conclude the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the May 16 and 17 statements on the basis of purported violations of Edwards.