Opinion ID: 1425644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Miranda Error.

Text: Because the issue will arise on retrial we address defendant's claim that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to the police on March 21 and 22, 1983, and evidence derived therefrom. Defendant brought a common law motion to suppress alleging violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974] for failure to give warnings before the March 21 interview and a section 1538.5 motion to suppress the March 21 and March 22 statements, along with those of Robert Cruz, as products of an illegal arrest. At the hearing on the motion Lieutenant Hash testified that during the course of his investigation on March 21, after the bodies were discovered, he was informed that defendant may have been a boyfriend of one of the victims and also that he was an ex-convict. Hash learned that defendant was on parole, and Detective Dean checked with the parole office in an attempt to locate defendant. Defendant's parole officer called Detective Dean to tell him defendant was in his office at that time for questioning. Dean said he wanted to talk to defendant and asked if he left directly, would it be possible to have Mr. Holloway there when [he] arrived? Dean testified that he did not tell the parole officer to hold, detain, or arrest defendant. When Dean and Hash arrived at the parole office about 6:34 p.m., they found defendant seated and handcuffed. Lieutenant Hash was surprised to see the handcuffs and asked the parole officer to remove them. Hash explained that he would like to talk to defendant downtown, and defendant indicated that he understood and that he would voluntarily come to the sheriff's station. The officers offered defendant the option of driving himself there, but when defendant said he had come with a friend they told defendant they would give him a ride home afterward if his friend did not want to accompany him. Lieutenant Hash testified that defendant would have been free to leave if he had so desired. Before taking defendant to the station, the officers patted him down for weapons. They put him in the backseat of the unmarked car, unhandcuffed. They arrived at the sheriff's station about 7 p.m. and interviewed defendant for about two hours. Defendant was advised that he was not a suspect at that time. Lieutenant Hash testified that they did not think they had probable cause to arrest defendant, but that defendant was a suspect in the same sense that many people were at that point. During this interview defendant gave his alibi involving Robert Cruz. At no time during the interview was defendant advised of his Miranda rights. Unbeknownst to defendant the interview was tape-recorded and broadcast over a squawk box. Defendant agreed to take a polygraph examination and provide a set of fingerprints. Defendant was given Miranda warnings before taking the polygraph examination. Defendant's alibi was corroborated, his polygraph examination indicated no deception, and defendant was driven home about 1 a.m., March 22. Defendant testified that when he agreed to go downtown with the officers, he had not felt that he had a choice. When he was at the station he had not felt that he was free to leave the interview room and go home, and this was not due to the fact that he had no ride home. Later that day, March 22, Lieutenant Hash went to defendant's home to speak to him about the false alibi he had asked Cruz to supply. They brought defendant's parole officer with them so they could conduct a parole search. Defendant said he had been trying to reach them and agreed to go with them to the sheriff's station. At the station defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, which he waived. After being interviewed for five to six hours, defendant indicated that he wanted a lawyer. At that point he was advised of his Miranda rights again, he waived them again, and continued to talk. Lieutenant Hash testified that only during this second interview did he feel that he had probable cause to arrest defendant. Hash did not think the false alibi alone provided probable cause, but he did think there was probable cause after defendant's fingerprints were matched with those in the townhouse. The trial court suppressed everything in the March 22 statement after defendant's initial indication that he desired an attorney. It ultimately denied suppression of the March 21 statement and the beginning portion of the March 22 statement. It did, however, order that the statements be sanitized to delete references to defendant's prior conviction, prison commitment, and parole. In denying suppression of the March 21 statement and a portion of the March 22 statement, the court ruled that defendant had not been in custody for purposes of Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment protection. The court reasoned that the initial coerciveness arising from the parole officer's act of handcuffing defendant was attenuated by the officers' prompt request for removal of the handcuffs and their noninvolvement in the decision to handcuff defendant. The officers were not overbearing in any way, and though defendant testified that he had not felt he had a choice, he also testified that he had not seen any reason not to go. The court also noted that the questioning had been gentlemanly and not coercive. Defendant contends that he was in custody for purposes of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He relies primarily on People v. Boyer (1989) 48 Cal.3d 247 [256 Cal Rptr. 96, 768 P.2d 610], contending that the facts of Boyer are strikingly similar to those here. We agree that there are similarities, but we find the situation here different in significant respects and affirm the trial court's ruling. In Boyer, four police officers in plain clothes and unmarked cars went to the defendant's home seeking a voluntary interview. They deemed him a suspect but did not have probable cause to arrest him. Two officers were posted at the rear of the house to detain the defendant if he attempted to flee when the other two officers knocked at the front door. The defendant emerged from the back door after the officers knocked at the front door and spoke with a woman. The officers stopped the defendant, identified themselves and said that they would like to speak with him. The defendant agreed to come to the police station for an interview and was accompanied by officers while he went in the house to change clothes. The defendant was frisked and told to have a seat in the back of the car. It took an hour to drive to the station. At the station, the defendant was advised of his Miranda rights before commencement of the interview. The questioning was aggressive and accusatory, and the officers evaded the defendant's questions regarding whether he was under arrest. We held that the circumstances amounted to an illegal arrest, noting the initial manner of accosting the defendant, the giving of Miranda warnings, and the accusatory questioning. (48 Cal.3d at pp. 267-268.) (6) The situation in the present case, by contrast, was considerably more benign and much less coercive. Leaving aside the initial handcuffing of defendant, for which the officers may not reasonably be held responsible, the circumstances of the officers' request for an interview did not carry the indicia of coercion that were present in Boyer, supra, 48 Cal.3d 247. Second, attention had not focused on defendant as a suspect; he was merely one of many persons being questioned. Third, no Miranda warnings were given since defendant was not considered a suspect. Fourth, the questioning was not aggressive or accusatory. These factors, in our view, serve to distinguish the situation from that in Boyer and convince us that the trial court was correct in concluding that defendant was not in custody for purposes of Fourth or Fifth Amendment protections at the time the challenged statements were made. We believe the facts here are closer to those in California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121 [77 L.Ed.2d 1275, 103 S.Ct. 3517] and Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492 [50 L.Ed.2d 714, 97 S.Ct. 711] than they are to Boyer. In both Beheler and Mathiason, the defendants agreed to come to the police station for an interview. Though they were suspects, they were told that they were not under arrest but that any statement they made would be evaluated by the district attorney. Both interviews lasted about 30 minutes, and the defendants then left. The United States Supreme Court held that neither defendant was in custody within the meaning of Miranda. The court noted that [a]ny interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it.... But police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person's freedom as to render him `in custody.' ( Oregon v. Mathiason, supra, 429 U.S. at p. 495 [50 L.Ed.2d at p. 719].) (7) In addition to the substantive challenge, defendant also challenges the trial court's ruling on procedural grounds. He contends the record is inadequate because there were approximately five hours of argument on the merits in chambers that were not reported by the court reporter. There is, however, a stipulated settled statement as to the contents of the in-chambers discussion, which indicates it concerned legal arguments. Section 1181, subdivision 9 authorizes a reviewing court to order a new trial because of the loss or destruction, in whole or in substantial part of the reporter's notes. The test is whether in light of all the circumstances it appears that the lost portion is `substantial' in that it affects the ability of the reviewing court to conduct a meaningful review and the ability of the defendant to properly perfect his appeal. ( People v. Morales (1979) 88 Cal. App.3d 259, 267 [151 Cal. Rptr. 610].) A settled statement may provide an adequate substitute. ( People v. Huff (1978) 83 Cal. App.3d 549, 556 [147 Cal. Rptr. 316].) We find the settled statement adequate here and accordingly reject defendant's procedural challenge. (8) Defendant also contends that the unreported argument in chambers violated his right to be present at all stages of the proceedings pursuant to sections 977 and 1043. We disagree. Sections 977 and 1043 have been interpreted as not requiring the accused's personal presence either in chambers or bench discussions that occur outside of the jury's presence on questions of law or other matters in which the defendant's presence does not bear a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge. ( People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 360 [233 Cal. Rptr. 368, 729 P.2d 802], internal quotation marks omitted.) Moreover, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that his absence prejudiced his case or denied him a fair trial. ( People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 783 [254 Cal. Rptr. 257, 765 P.2d 419].) Defendant has not met his burden of showing prejudice. The settled statement reveals that the only matters discussed were legal arguments about the court's intended ruling, its ramifications, relevant authorities, and the question of which evidence was derivative. Given the nature of the discussion, defendant's presence was not necessary to protect his interests. Defendant further contends that the court's ruling was based on improper considerations regarding the ramifications of suppression of the statements. The authorities he cites, however, do not support defendant's premise that it is improper for the court to consider the effect of its ruling on derivative evidence. The record shows that the court initially indicated that it intended to rule that the March 21 statement and the latter part of the March 22 statement were inadmissible. The court described its rambling ruling as something in the nature of an announcement of intended decision. In the course of explaining its intended ruling, the court indicated that it was bending over backwards to keep out pre-Mirandized statements in order to fully protect the Defendant's rights. The prosecutor asked the court to look at California v. Beheler, supra, 463 U.S. 1121, before the court made a firm ruling. The court did so and then began a series of discussions with counsel in chambers regarding the derivative evidence that would be suppressed if the March 21 statement were suppressed. The prosecutor urged the court, in view of the ramifications of suppression of the March 21 statement, not to bend over backwards for defendant. After more on-the-record discussion, the court ultimately indicated that it had reconsidered its tentative position and had decided that the March 21 statement was admissible. No impropriety appears in the court's decisionmaking.