Opinion ID: 1196151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial court's findings and analysis

Text: The People charged Arroya with two counts of first-degree murder under sections 18-3-102(1)(a) and (f), 6 C.R.S. (1998). Arroya moved to suppress all statements made in the second interview after the break, asserting that her words, I don't wanna talk no more, invoked her right to remain silent and thereby cut off questioning, and that the police failed to respect fully her exercise of this right as required by both the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), and this court in People v. Quezada, 731 P.2d 730 (1987). In a six-page written opinion adopting the portions of Arroya's argument relevant to this appeal, the trial court stated that it reviewed the transcripts and videotapes of the interrogation in their entirety. Earlier during the hearing on the motion to suppress, the judge expressly stated that he would personally review the videotapes of the interrogation in order to appreciate fully the demeanor and tones of the detective and Arroya, as opposed to just viewing their words in the transcripts. With respect to the general circumstances of the questioning, the trial court found that Arroya had little or no contact with the criminal justice system before this interrogation. The court credited the detective with maintaining a gentle tone throughout the interrogation, noting that he was repeatedly solicitous of Arroya's condition. [1] The trial court found that there were a number of questions asked by the detective that she did not answer. The court found that Arroya's answers to the detective's questions on the second tape were far less responsive than were her answers on the first videotape; on the second tape her answers were frequently difficult to hear. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the court inquired and was told that only the detective, a district attorney, and Arroya were present during the interview. Along with these general findings, the trial court made findings concerning the specific facts of the interrogation. The court found that although Arroya gave unintelligible answers or no answers at all to many of the detective's questions on the second tape, her statement I don't wanna talk no more was understandable on the tape. The court noted that the initial advisement given at the beginning of the first tape included notice of her right to remain silent, but that the advisement was not given to Arroya at the beginning of the second interview. Addressing the circumstances preceding Arroya's statement that she did not wanna talk no more, the trial court found that just before Arroya's request to stop the interrogation, she made a number of serious, incriminating admissions: Indeed in the second interrogation there are a number of questions asked by Detective Neil to which there is no answer given by Defendant. The answers which are given are frequently difficult to hear. Before she indicated that she did not want to talk any further she made it clear that her boyfriend was not involved[;] ... that [the child] died because of the water[;] ... that he died because she was holding him under water[;] ... that she did it but she wouldn't tell what she did[;] ... that nobody had anything to do with it other than her and there is nobody to blame but her.... Her statement, I don't wanna talk no more, is understandable on the tape, and was preceded by these serious admissions. We note that the dialogue that occurred just before Arroya said, I don't wanna talk no more, appears to support the trial court's finding that Arroya clearly asserted her right to remain silent and to cut off further questioning. The detective asked, Do you want a break? after Arroya made serious incriminatory statements, and Arroya did not answer the question directly but instead said, I don't wanna talk no more. Arroya: (Long pause) Aah. (Unintelligible) (crying) I don't wanna think of it (sic). I'm all messed up. I don't know ... I just ... I ... I know I put him to sleep with ... I've done some things that I know they are for the best, but he had a life. He felt. He was not like an abortion, he was ... (crying & sighing) ... Neil: It's not like an abortion ... it was ... Arroya: He is ... he had life. Neil: Yeah. Arroya: He lived in me. Neil: Do you wanna break? Arroya: (Crying) I don't wanna talk no more. (Emphasis added.) Once Arroya said she wanted to stop the questioning, the trial court found that the detective immediately stopped and gave her a break. The court could not determine the exact length of the break, but found that it was relatively short, measured in minutes rather than hours or days. After the short break, the questioning resumed. The detective made no attempt, the trial court found, to re-advise Arroya of her rights or to clarify her earlier statement that she did not want to talk further. The court found that there certainly was no subsequent Miranda advisement or discussion, but that the questioning continued: When the interview was resumed there was no attempt to re-advise defendant or to clarify her previous statement.... There was certainly no subsequent Miranda advisement or discussion of her rights. Rather, the tape demonstrates that after a short break questioning continued. Based on its consideration of these circumstances, the trial court held that although Arroya had voluntarily agreed to speak and had voluntarily spoken with the detective for some period of time, the statement `I don't wanna talk no more,' was a clear invocation of her right to remain silent. Even though the detective testified that he thought Arroya's statement meant she wanted to take a break and not that she wanted to cut off the questioning entirely, the court concluded that her statement is an invocation of the right to remain silent and triggers the steps which must be taken in order to reinitiate conversations. After concluding that Arroya's statement was a clear assertion of her right to remain silent, the trial court then assessed the police conduct surrounding Arroya's unequivocal assertion of her right to cut off questioning. The court found that the police failed to clarify the meaning of Arroya's statement; that the police gave her only a very short break; and that the police did not re-advise Arroya of her rights under Miranda when they continued with the questioning. The court concluded that under these circumstances the police had not scrupulously honored Arroya's request to cut off questioning. The court reasoned that the police did nothing that would permit them to resume the interrogation once the right had been invoked, consistent with Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104-05, 96 S.Ct. 321, and Quezada, 731 P.2d at 733, and therefore the police failed to respect fully the assertion of Arroya's right to remain silent.