Opinion ID: 4533291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Law Relating to Custodial Interrogations

Text: ¶24 “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that ‘no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’” Pleshakov, ¶ 19, 298 P.3d at 233 (quoting U.S. Const. amend. V). A person subjected to a custodial interrogation is afforded certain procedural safeguards to secure this Fifth Amendment privilege. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478–79. Specifically, the state may not introduce in its case-in-chief statements made by a defendant during a custodial interrogation unless the state establishes that the defendant was advised 10 that (1) the defendant has the right to remain silent; (2) anything that the defendant says can be used against him or her in a court of law; (3) the defendant has the right to the presence of an attorney; and (4) if the defendant cannot afford an attorney, then one will be appointed for him or her prior to questioning, if desired. Id. at 479. ¶25 A person is in custody for Miranda purposes when he or she “has been formally arrested or if, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have felt that [his or] her freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest.” People v. Garcia, 2017 CO 106, ¶ 20, 409 P.3d 312, 317. ¶26 “A Miranda custody assessment considers ‘the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not . . . the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.’” Davis, ¶ 19, 449 P.3d at 738 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 (1994)). “In making this determination, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances under which the interrogation was conducted.” Mumford v. People, 2012 CO 2, ¶ 13, 270 P.3d 953, 957. The factors that the court should consider include: (1) the time, place, and purpose of the encounter; (2) the persons present during the interrogation; (3) the words spoken by the officer to the defendant; (4) the officer’s tone of voice and general demeanor; (5) the length and mood of the interrogation; (6) whether any limitation of movement or other form of restraint was placed on the 11 defendant during the interrogation; (7) the officer’s response to any questions asked by the defendant; (8) whether directions were given to the defendant during the interrogation; and (9) the defendant’s verbal or nonverbal response to such directions. People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 465–66 (Colo. 2002) (citation omitted). ¶27 This list is not exhaustive, and therefore, no single factor is determinative. Mumford, ¶ 14, 270 P.3d at 957.