Court Opinion

ID: 9610288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:39:23.23775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:08.365475
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion except for that portion dealing with the admissibility of Mr. Ramos’ statement to investigator *831Anderson in the presence of Father Velasquez, a Catholic priest. As to that portion, I specially concur. I am inclined to conclude that the combination of Anderson’s telling Ramos that he was going to be charged with first degree murder and that the element of premeditation meant Ramos had time to think about what he was going to do to the victim, together with the presence of the Catholic priest, constituted “interrogation” in the broad context defined in Innis. Further, I am inclined to conclude that Anderson should have known that his “interrogation” of Ramos was reasonably likely to elicit a response from Ramos. Therefore, Ramos’ fifth amendment protection was violated. Finally, after reviewing the totality of the other admissible evidence, I have concluded that this constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Campbell v. State, 589 P.2d 358 (Wyo.1979).