Opinion ID: 844257
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Asserted invocation of right to remain silent

Text: Finally, defendant contends that he ultimately invoked his right to remain silent. (11) As we stated in People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 535 [26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 108 P.3d 182], `[i]n order to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege after it has been waived, and in order to halt police questioning after it has begun, the suspect must unambiguously  assert his right to silence. . . .' (See also People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 114 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454, 180 P.3d 224].) In addition, we also concluded that the `stop and clarify' rule does not apply to ambiguous assertions of the right to silence. `Faced with an ambiguous or equivocal statement, law enforcement officers are not required. . . either to ask clarifying questions or to cease questioning altogether.' ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 535; see also People v. Rundle, supra, 43 Cal.4th 76, 115.) ( People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 947-948 [105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 224 P.3d 877]; accord, Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) 560 U.S. ___ [177 L.Ed.2d 1123, 131 S.Ct. 33]; People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1107-1108, fn. 5 [116 Cal.Rptr.3d 723, 240 P.3d 204].) An allegation of invocation under Miranda was not one of the several grounds upon which defendant challenged the admissibility of his statement below. As a result, the trial court had no opportunity to resolve material factual disputes and make necessary factual findings. Therefore, as the Attorney General correctly observes, the claim has been forfeited. ( People v. Low (2010) 49 Cal.4th 372, 392 [110 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 232 P.3d 635]; People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 506-507 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 245, 150 P.3d 1224]; People v. Michaels, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 511-512.) Moreover, the claim is without merit. Defendant relies on the italicized passage in which Detective Theuer pressed him to confess to the rape of Regina M. THEUER: We, we have the right guy. You know that. [¶] SCOTT: I don't . . . [¶] . . . and we know that. [¶] SCOTT: I don't, I didn't do it. What am I gonna tell you, I didn't do it. [¶] THEUER: You have to tell us what happened that night. If you tell us the truth, what happened that night, why you did it, how you did it . . . [¶] SCOTT: I'm trying to tell you . . . [¶] THEUER: . . . then we'll get this thing over with. Well look, we'll get it over with . . . [¶] SCOTT: I don't, I don't want it, I don't wanna . . . . (Italics added.) Read in context, the statement that defendant asserts was an invocation of his right to remain silent appears to be simply a repeated refusal to admit his guilt. As soon as the subject was changed, defendant readily continued to respond to questions. [¶] THEUER: How old are you? [¶] SCOTT: Twenty-two. Such conduct is completely inconsistent with his belated claim that he wanted to end the interview. At no time did defendant decline to speak, ask to end the interview, or seek counsel.