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

Heading: Refusal to cease police questioning at defendant's request.

Text: Defendant next contends that his Miranda rights were violated when Detectives Bell and Reed refused to cease their questioning after he invoked his right to halt the interrogation. As Miranda itself recognized, police officers must cease questioning a suspect who exercises the right to cut off the interrogation. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. ( Miranda supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 473-474 [86 S.Ct. at p. 1627].) Whether the suspect has indeed invoked that right, however, is a question of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances.... ( People v. Hayes (1985) 38 Cal.3d 780, 784 [214 Cal. Rptr. 652, 699 P.2d 1259].) We have also said that `[a] desire to halt the interrogation may be indicated in a variety of ways,' ( id. at p. 784) and that the words used `must be construed in context.' ( Id. at pp. 784-785.) In the context presented here, Detectives Bell and Reed were attempting to determine whether defendant was in the apartment complex where Norma Painter's body was found on the day of her murder. The detective said to defendant: ... Okay, we're talking deadly serious stuff here partner. We're through, we're through bantering around. We're going to have to get down to the facts. Okay. The fact of the matter is, you're going to have to think very clearly right now. You got to think what's best for me. Am I in a bind or what. Now what do these guys know and what don't they know. If they got enough to do me, what's my best thing to do. What's best for me. To this statement, defendant replied, I don't know what you, I don't want to talk about this. You all are getting me confused. (inaudible) I don't even know what you're all talking about. You're getting[,] you're making me nervous here telling me I done something I ain't done. Kill somebody, come on, give me a break. (Italics added.) Detective Reed answered: What we are telling you is that, that we do know ... you were in that, in the complex, okay? That's all. I mean it's no big deal if you're honest with us. But what makes us suspicious is if you continue to say that you weren't there. Walking all over the place, defendant replied, walking up and down roads. Right on, there you go, said Detective Reed. Okay, do you cut through complexes? Not unless there's a parking lot and I got to get to a plaza or something, defendant answered. That's the only time? Detective Reed asked. Yeah, defendant answered. Reed replied, Okay, well that's a start. Let's say you cut through the parking lot. Okay. I didn't have to, defendant said. After viewing the videotape of the police interview, the trial court concluded there was no evidence of an attempt by defendant to cut off police questioning: I don't see any evidence in the way that the defendant was acting or in the way he was responding, that he was asking to end that interview, as far as I was concerned, and when I looked at the tape. So I don't think that's a request to terminate. We give considerable weight, of course, to such a finding by the trial judge. In this case we agree with it. There are a number of cases in which this court and the Court of Appeal have reviewed the findings of the trial court that what is claimed, post hoc, to be a suspect's attempt to invoke his Miranda right to remain silent and cut off further questioning is something less or other than that. (See, e.g., People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 823-824 [176 Cal. Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186] [single statement by defendant during polygraph that he did not want to answer a question was not an assertion of Miranda rights]; People v. Jennings (1988) 46 Cal.3d 963, 977-978 [251 Cal. Rptr. 278, 760 P.2d 475] [defendant's statement, after assailing questioning police officer, that `I'm not going to talk' .... `That's it. I shut up' reflected only momentary frustration and animosity toward one of the officers and was not an invocation of his right to remain silent]; In re Joe R. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 496, 516 [165 Cal. Rptr. 837, 612 P.2d 927] [in context, defendant's statement, `That's all I got to say' or `That's all I want to tell you,' did not amount to assertion of right to remain silent]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 629 [247 Cal. Rptr. 573, 754 P.2d 1070] [defendant's statement, `I really don't want to talk about that,' did not amount to invocation of Miranda ].) This is another such case.