Opinion ID: 2625630
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of motion to exclude statements

Text: Defendant claims statements he made to the police and the deputy district attorney at the police station following his arrest were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602] ( Miranda ), because the police failed to honor his asserted unequivocal request for counsel. He also contends he made these statements involuntarily. Finally, he challenges as involuntary the statements he made in the police vehicle as he was being transported to the police station after his arrest. Defendant argues that the trial court's failure to suppress the statements constituted a violation of rights secured by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and requires reversal of his conviction and sentence of death.
At the in limine hearing on defendant's motion to exclude his statements from evidence, the parties presented starkly contrasting accounts of defendant's interactions with arresting officers Grier and Fritz, and his interviews with Sergeants Madarang and Chenault. On August 7, 1993, defendant telephoned a police dispatcher to inquire about his potential responsibility for the charged crimes. Officer Fritz arrived to arrest him. Fritz placed defendant in his patrol car, advised him that he was under arrest on suspicion of murder, and directed him not to ask questions concerning the case. Fritz did not advise defendant of his Miranda rights or pose any questions. Defendant began to talk, inquiring how he had been identified and remarking that he had not been in trouble recently. Fritz then asked Officer Keller to join him in the police vehicle. Fritz again informed defendant that he should not inquire about the charges or make any statements. Defendant nonetheless continued to speak, again questioning who had identified him and inquiring, are you sure it's me? After approximately 10 minutes, Officer Keller exited from the vehicle and Fritz drove defendant to the police station, arriving at approximately 10:00 a.m. Defendant was placed in an interview room and was offered food, drink, and cigarettes. Sergeant Madarang, the primary investigating officer, was at that time in Sacramento. He returned to Oakland, entering the interrogation room with his partner, Sergeant Chenault, at approximately 12:20 p.m. He asked defendant some preliminary questions. Sergeant Madarang then read defendant the full Miranda advisements directly from a printed form, which defendant initialed. Defendant agreed to speak with the officers. Over the next hour and a half, he denied any responsibility for the shooting and claimed to have been merely a witness. At approximately 2:00 p.m., the officers took a break, offering defendant refreshment and a bathroom break. They returned for further interrogation at approximately 3:30 p.m. Defendant continued for approximately an hour to deny guilt. The detectives informed defendant that witnesses had identified him as the shooter, and challenged him with the evidence they had gathered against him. Defendant became emotional and stated he wished to explain what really happened. At approximately 4:45 p.m., defendant confessed to the crime, explaining he decided to rob the victim because he was under financial pressure from his family. Sergeant Madarang subsequently initiated a tape-recorded interview in which defendant again confessed. Defendant acknowledged he had been advised of his rights when the officers first arrived to question him. Sergeant Madarang again read the Miranda advisements to defendant. After confirming that his initials were on the Miranda form, defendant stated he understood his rights and wished to speak with the detectives. At the end of the tape-recorded interview, defendant confirmed he was not promised anything or threatened in any way. After the tape-recorded interview with Sergeant Madarang, defendant participated in another tape-recorded interview with Deputy District Attorney O'Connor, again confessing to the murder. At the beginning of this second interview, defendant confirmed that he already had spoken to the officers, that he had done so freely and voluntarily, and that the officers had read the Miranda advisements to him. After the deputy district attorney again read defendant the Miranda advisements, defendant initialed a second Miranda form and stated he understood his rights and, having those rights in mind, wanted to speak. Defendant testified at the hearing that he had telephoned the police because he had read a newspaper article about the shooting. According to defendant, he made no requests for action on the part of the police department, but was informed an investigator would arrive to speak with him. He was placed in the patrol car. He inquired whether the officers had a warrant, but said nothing else. After his arrest he waited two to three hours in a small room at the police station before being interviewed by the officers. Defendant claimed that when the officers began to interrogate him, they failed to advise him of his rights. He claimed he requested counsel, but was informed there isn't one right now, but we'll get one for you, and the interrogation continued. According to defendant, the officers accused him of committing the murder, stated he could not make a statement later if he waited for a lawyer, threatened him with not seeing his girlfriend unless he told the truth, and informed him the matter was not sufficiently serious to warrant a judgment of death. Defendant testified the police informed him that a truthful confession would be beneficial to him and result in imprisonment only for a few years, and advised him that if he did not tell the truth then, his statement would constitute damaging evidence when he was brought before a court and at trial. According to defendant, he again requested counsel and to telephone his parents. Defendant testified he confessed only after the officers ignored his requests for counsel, asserted that they had witnesses against him, stated that he would have no opportunity to make a statement later, and patted him on the shoulder urging him to confess. On cross-examination, defendant acknowledged that he had been offered food and drink throughout the interviews, that he had been advised of his constitutional rights in past unrelated matters, that he knew he could speak with a lawyer, and that on prior occasions he had been arrested and had refused to talk to the police. Sergeants Madarang and Chenault testified that defendant did not request to speak with an attorney during their interrogations. They denied defendant's other assertions. The officers denied threatening or making promises to defendant to persuade him to confess. They denied having discussed the death penalty or offered benefits in exchange for the confession. The officers did not say it would make a difference to the court or the prosecution if defendant told the truth. They did not threaten defendant would not see his parents or girlfriend unless he confessed, nor did they inform him that if he confessed he would be subject to imprisonment for only a few years. Sergeant Madarang denied patting defendant on the shoulder. Madarang testified that throughout the interviews, the officers provided defendant with soft drinks and with cigarettes at his request, allowed him to use the restroom, and offered him food. In argument on the motion, the prosecutor stressed defendant's written and recorded acknowledgements that he had been advised of his rights in a timely manner. Defense counsel did not seriously contest the Miranda issue, stating in response to the prosecutor's argument: I think the issue is not whether or not he was properly admonished. I believe that the timingyou know, I see no reason to disbelieve, frankly, the time of that. Instead, defense counsel argued: The issue is whether or not he was told it was a capital offense, whether he was told things would be better for him. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and admitted defendant's statements, accepting the officers' version of the events as true and concluding that defendant properly was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. The court made a finding that Sergeants Madarang and Chenault were credible witnesses, based on the content of their testimony and the court's personal observations of their demeanor as they testified. The court concluded it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had received timely admonitions and knowingly and intelligently had waived his rights. The court further found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant's statements were freely and voluntarily given. Specifically, the trial court concluded that there [were] no circumstances of coercion or force, and that the totality of the circumstances indicate[d] that these statements were voluntarily given. With respect to the statements made to the deputy district attorney, the trial court reached the same conclusions, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was appropriately and in a timely fashion advised . . . of his constitutional rights, and . . . freely and voluntarily waived those rights.
Defendant asserts his initial confession to Sergeants Madarang and Chenault was obtained in violation of Miranda because it was elicited from him after his unequivocal request for counsel. Defendant also asserts his second confession to Deputy District Attorney O'Connor was the tainted product of his initial confession. We conclude the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress these two confessions. (1) Pursuant to Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. 436, a suspect [may] not be subjected to custodial interrogation unless he or she knowingly and intelligently has waived the right to remain silent, to the presence of an attorney, and, if indigent, to appointed counsel. ( People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 992 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519]; see also People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 114 [74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454, 180 P.3d 224], disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 [87 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 198 P.3d 11].) After a knowing and voluntary waiver, interrogation may proceed `until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney.' ( People v. Gonzalez (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1111, 1124 [23 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 104 P.3d 98].) The prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of the defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1034 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544], citing Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 168 [93 L.Ed.2d 473, 107 S.Ct. 515].) In considering a claim on appeal that a statement or confession is inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights, we review independently the trial court's legal determinations . . . . We evaluate the trial court's factual findings regarding the circumstances surrounding the defendant's statements and waivers, and `accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, if supported by substantial evidence.' ( People v. Rundle, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 115.) The trial court in the present case was aware that the prosecution's burden was to establish the validity of defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence but, apparently to demonstrate its confidence in its conclusion, applied the stricter beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The court stressed that it credited the officers who testified that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights in a timely manner and that he never requested counsel. The two tape-recorded interviews, the first with the officers and the second with the deputy district attorney, further corroborate the officers' version of the events. In the tape-recorded interviews, defendant acknowledged that he had been advised of his rights at the commencement of the prior interrogation, that he initialed the waiver form, and that he wished to speak to the authorities. We accept the trial court's resolution of the factual dispute that existed between the defense and the prosecution witnesses, along with its credibility determination, because both findings were amply supported by the evidence. Defendant's attack on the credibility of all of the police officers, unsupported by the record of the suppression hearing, is insufficient to provide a basis for rejecting the trial court's findings. Defendant urges that the very comprehensiveness of the officers' denials that they urged defendant to confess undermines the officers' credibility. We are persuaded, however, that the trial court's determination that the officers were credible witnesses is supported by substantial evidence. In sum, defendant's Miranda claim lacks merit. Having concluded that defendant's initial confession to the officers was not obtained in violation of Miranda, we reject defendant's related claim that his second confession to the deputy district attorney was the tainted product of his initial confession. (2) Defendant also challenges the admission of the statements on the ground they were involuntary. Any involuntary statement obtained by a law enforcement officer from a criminal suspect by coercion is inadmissible pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. ( People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 267 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 554, 73 P.3d 433]; People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 67 [1 Cal.Rptr.3d 650, 72 P.3d 280].) To determine the voluntariness of a confession, courts examine `whether a defendant's will was overborne' by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession. ( Dickerson v. United States (2000) 530 U.S. 428, 434 [147 L.Ed.2d 405, 120 S.Ct. 2326].) In making this determination, courts apply a totality of the circumstances test, looking at the nature of the interrogation and the circumstances relating to the particular defendant. ( People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 298 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 877, 96 P.3d 170]; People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 576 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816, 967 P.2d 29].) With respect to the interrogation, among the factors to be considered are `the crucial element of police coercion [citation]; the length of the interrogation [citation]; its location [citation]; its continuity . . . .' ( People v. Massie, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 576.) With respect to the defendant, the relevant factors are `the defendant's maturity [citation]; education [citation]; physical condition [citation]; and mental health.' ( Ibid. ) A statement is involuntary [citation] when, among other circumstances, it `was `extracted by any sort of threats . . ., [or] obtained by any direct or implied promises . . . .'' ( People v. Neal, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 79.) As with Miranda claims, the trial court's legal conclusion as to the voluntariness of a confession is subject to independent review on appeal. ( People v. Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 298; People v. Massie, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 576.) The trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, its evaluation of credibility, and its findings as to the circumstances surrounding the confession are upheld if supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 298; People v. Massie, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 576.) The state bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the evidence. ( People v. Haley, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 298.) In the present case, again applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the trial court concluded that there [were] no circumstances of coercion or force, and that the totality of the circumstances indicates that these statements were voluntarily given. The interrogating officers specifically denied defendant's claims, including that they offered him benefits for confessing, issued threats, or misled him concerning the potential punishment he faced. The trial court credited the officers' testimony, and its credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Under all the circumstances, we agree with the trial court that defendant's statements were made voluntarily. Although defendant was required to wait approximately two hours before the interrogation began, the delay was not the result of improper police conduct. Rather, it arose because the police had not planned to arrest or interview defendant prior to his own telephone call to the police; Sergeant Madarang, the lead investigator, was in Sacramento and was required to travel to Oakland to interview defendant. During defendant's interrogation, the officers provided defendant with soft drinks and cigarettes, allowed him to use the restroom, and offered him food. Most important, as the trial court found, the officers did not engage in any impermissibly coercive tactics in procuring defendant's confession. Defendant contends his own unbalanced mental state rendered him susceptible to coercion. His claim that he was mentally disturbed is based primarily upon the circumstance that he telephoned the police dispatcher and that he spoke in a rambling manner in the police vehicle while being transported to the police station. This conduct, however, may be explained by the stress and emotion felt by defendant after recognizing that he would face responsibility for the crime. In any event, his own vulnerability does not demonstrate official coercion. Insofar as a defendant's claims of involuntariness emphasize that defendant's particular psychological state rendered him open to coercion, this court has noted that `[t]he Fifth Amendment is not concerned with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion. ' ( People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 502 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 245, 150 P.3d 1224], italics added.) Although defendant may have felt vulnerable, there is no indication of police coercion during his initial contacts with the police or during the subsequent interrogations. Similarly, although defendant claims his decision to confess was based upon his youth and his absence of experience with the criminal justice system, there was no indication of police exploitation of these circumstances. On the contrary, during his tape-recorded interviews, defendant expressly stated that he was speaking freely and voluntarily. Consequently, the trial court properly concluded that defendant's confession was made voluntarily.
Defendant contends his spontaneous statements made en route to the police station on August 7, 1993, were similarly involuntary because he was mentally disturbed at the time he made the statements. In response to an ambiguous challenge to the voluntariness of statements defendant made in Officer Fritz's patrol vehicle, the trial court found that these statements were freely and voluntarily given. In addition, according to the trial court, although defendant was not given Miranda advisements, his statements were made spontaneously and were not the product of custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that these spontaneous statements were admissible. The trial court also stated that based upon its personal observation of Officer Fritz as he testified, it found that the officer was a believable and credible witness. Defendant again contends his unbalanced mental state is evidenced by his conduct in contacting the police and in his repetitive and rambling statements made while he was seated in Officer Fritz's patrol car. Fritz did not describe defendant's statements as rambling or incoherent. Defendant himself testified that he said nothing at all in the patrol car, whether rambling or otherwise, other than to inquire whether the officers had a warrant. Fritz credibly testified that he did nothing more than sit and listen to defendant. There is no evidence of any official coercion or of exploitation of defendant's youth or asserted inexperience. Defendant's claimed psychological vulnerabilities do not suggest his statements were involuntary. (See People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1403 [58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973]; People v. Smith, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 502.) Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements defendant made in the police car.