Opinion ID: 1225502
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged invalid waiver of Miranda rights.

Text: On December 10, 1987, three days after Norma Painter's body was found, defendant was questioned by Detectives Robert Bell and Stan Reed of the Sacramento Police Department. In the course of that custodial interview, which took the better part of two hours, defendant made three videotaped statements. The first and third of these statements were made to Detectives Bell and Reed; the second to a Detective Vance of the Solano County Sheriff's Office. In pretrial motions, the defense sought to have all three statements suppressed on the ground that, in obtaining them, the officers had violated the rule announced in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974] (hereafter Miranda ). Because defendant's purported waiver of his Miranda rights had been obtained involuntarily, the defense argued, his ensuing confession was invalid and inadmissible at trial. The trial court granted the motion with respect to defendant's statement to Detective Vance, but held that defendant's Miranda waiver preceding the first and third statements  those given to Bell and Reed  was valid and that these statements, amounting in substance to confessions to the attempted murder of Shawn May and the murder of Norma Painter, were not inadmissible at trial on that ground. Audiotapes and a transcript of defendant's first statement to Bell and Reed were presented to the jury at trial and admitted into evidence. (1) In challenging the admission of this evidence, defendant contends Detectives Bell and Reed employed a variety of improper means to coerce his statement. Being involuntary, it should not have been admitted at defendant's trial. We consider these challenges in the order presented. Defendant first argues that Detectives Bell and Reed led him to believe at the outset of their questioning that he was not a suspect in the murder of Norma Painter. Shortly after their interview with defendant began, the following exchange occurred: BELL: Also in regard to that, ah, we don't know much about this case yet. Quite honestly, you know.... MUSSELWHITE: Yeah. BELL: [W]e're still getting into it. And as I told you when we were out there, we've got a lot of people we're going to interview, you're one of many. MUSSELWHITE: I don't know nothing about it. BELL: Well, that's great. Well we need to find that out. MUSSELWHITE: Yeah. BELL: Well, we don't know what you know and what you don't know and so, what we'd like to do is just go ahead and advise you of your rights before we even get started and that way, that there's no problem with any of it. Is that alright with you? Defendant asserts that these representations by the two police inspectors were untrue and induced a false sense of security that led defendant to waive involuntarily his Miranda rights. The difficulty with such an argument on this record is the absence of evidence suggesting that Reed and Bell had indeed lied when they told defendant they d[id]n't know much about this case yet, were still getting into it, had a lot of people we're going to interview, you're one of many, didn't know what you know and what you don't know, and for that reason, what we'd like to do is just go ahead and advise you of your rights before we even get started and that way, that there's no problem with any of it. Defendant points out that at the time of the interview, Reed and Bell had information (e.g., impressions taken from the rental applications tablet, defendant's palm print on the coffee table, witness statements that someone similar in appearance had been in the rental office) strongly suggesting defendant's presence at the Cottonwood Apartments on the day of Mrs. Painter's murder. But although suggestive, this evidence hardly added up to premeditated first degree murder. It certainly did not establish that defendant killed Mrs. Painter, or robbed or burglarized the manager's office. It is not unreasonable therefore to take the statements of Reed and Bell at face value  that they were in the midst of a murder investigation, had leads but were still getting into the case, and didn't know what defendant knew except that he had likely been at the Cottonwood Apartments on or near the day of the homicide. Without that missing factual predicate, defendant's claim of police trickery in inducing the waiver of his Miranda rights falls. The detectives never affirmatively represented to defendant that he was free of suspicion or that someone else was the focus of their investigation. A waiver of Miranda required no more to be valid. ( Colorado v. Spring (1987) 479 U.S. 564, 573 [107 S.Ct. 851, 857, 93 L.Ed.2d 954] [only issue presented by Miranda voluntariness claims is whether the suspect's `will [was] overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired' because of coercive police conduct].)