Court Opinion

ID: 9787432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:16:25.72807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:55.847798
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the majority’s judgment reversing the district court’s finding of a Miranda violation, but I cannot agree that the statements made by the defendant after learning of her stabbing victim’s death should be suppressed as involuntary. Although the statements suppressed by the majority were clearly intended to be exculpatory and add little to the defendant’s earlier statements, I write separately because I believe the majority’s holding will nevertheless substantially impact the law of confessions in this jurisdiction. In particular, I believe the majority goes awry in holding that a trial court’s ultimate determination of voluntariness can be entitled to deference by a reviewing court; in finding that the district court in this case applied the correct legal standard; and in failing to determine, on its own, that the defendant’s statements were not involuntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.
Well before the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause was incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), and that the Self-Incrimination Clause extended beyond the courtroom to custodial interrogation by the police, see Miranda v. State, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), it had acquired jurisdiction over confessions in state criminal cases by holding that involuntary confessions were barred by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). See generally Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432-35, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (recounting the development of and distinctions between the requirements of Miranda and the due process voluntariness test). Although the Court’s due process jurisprudence excluding involun*364tary confessions has never been abandoned, in situations of custodial interrogation its focus has shifted to the prophylactic warnings of Miranda, developed specifically to guard the privilege against self-incrimination in an inherently coercive atmosphere. Id. at 434-35, 120 S.Ct. 2326. And while statements made after a voluntary and knowing waiver of Miranda rights may still be rendered involuntary by improper threats or promises, or by coercion, it is clearly more difficult for one who is told he is free to refuse to answer questions to complain that his answers were the product of intimidation or psychological coercion. Cf. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 576, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987) (quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 188, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977), “Indeed, it seems self-evident that one who is told he is free to refuse to answer questions is in a curious posture to later complain that his answers were compelled.”).
Because of the “hybrid quality” of the vol-untariness inquiry or the intermediate inference of “psychological fact” that must be drawn from the historical facts, see Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 116, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985), an ultimate finding of voluntariness has come to be understood as a mixed question of fact and law, requiring independent or plenary review, rather than a finding of simple historical fact. See, e.g., Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); Beavers v. State, 998 P.2d 1040, 1044 (Alaska 2000); People v. Jablonski, 37 Cal.4th 774, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98, 126 P.3d 938, 965 (2006); State v. Fields, 265 Conn. 184, 827 A.2d 690, 698 (2003); State v. Buck, 83 Hawaii 308, 926 P.2d 599, 612 (1996); Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1076 (Ind.1989); State v. Bell, 276 Kan. 785, 80 P.3d 367, 375 (2003); State v. Coombs, 704 A.2d 387, 390 (Me.1998); Gorge v. State, 386 Md. 600, 873 A.2d 1171, 1177 (2005); State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 672 n. 2 (Minn.1998) (addressing whether waiver of right to counsel was voluntary, but noting that standard of independent review is analogous to assessing whether a defendant’s statements or confessions were voluntary); State v. Cooper, 124 N.M. 277, 949 P.2d 660, 665 (1997); State v. Hyde, 352 N.C. 37, 530 S.E.2d 281, 288 (2000); State v. Acremant, 338 Or. 302, 108 P.3d 1139, 1152-53 (2005); Com. v. Templin, 568 Pa. 306, 795 A.2d 959, 961 (2002); State v. Morato, 619 N.W.2d 655, 659 (S.D.2000); State v. Mabe, 864 P.2d 890, 892 (Utah 1993); Midkiff v. Com., 250 Va. 262, 462 S.E.2d 112, 116 (1995); State v. Singleton, 218 W.Va. 180, 624 S.E.2d 527, 531 (2005) (“This Court is constitutionally obligated to give plenary, independent, and de novo review to the ultimate question of whether a particular confession is voluntary and whether the lower court applied the correct legal standard in making the determination. The holdings of prior West Virginia cases suggesting deference in this area continue, but that deference is limited to factual findings as opposed to legal conclusions.”); State v. Clappes, 136 Wis.2d 222, 401 N.W.2d 759, 765 (1987); Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1194 (Wyo.1997). But see State v. Ford, 144 N.H. 57, 738 A.2d 937, 941 (1999) (“We are aware that, in contrast to our traditional deferential review of voluntariness of confessions, the federal courts apply a de novo review.”).
Prior to Miller, like many other jurisdictions, we treated a trial court’s finding of involuntariness, as long as it was based on a correct legal standard, as a finding of fact, entitled to deference by reviewing courts. See, e.g., People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 236 (Colo.1982) (“A trial court’s finding of fact on the voluntariness of a confession .... ”). Although we were perhaps slower in this context than some others to expressly distinguish the application of a correct legal standard from the correctness of the standard itself, and to treat the former as well as the latter as a question of law, subject to plenary review, we have now long accepted this understanding. See People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 844 (Colo.1991) (“Just as a trial court’s application of an erroneous legal standard in resolving a suppression motion is subject to correction on appeal, so also is an ultimate legal conclusion of constitutional law that is inconsistent with or unsupported by evidentiary findings.”); see also People v. Valdez, 969 P.2d 208, 211 (Colo.1998) (“When the controlling facts are undisputed, the legal effect of those facts constitutes a question of law which is subject to de novo review.”).
*365In this jurisdiction, we first had occasion to articulate this distinction in the context of a waiver of Miranda rights, see People v. Que-zada, 731 P.2d 730, 732-33 (Colo.1987) (whether invocation of right to remain silent was. scrupulously honored), but quickly recognized its applicability to the suppression of statements required by the due process standard. See Valdez, 969 P.2d at 211; Gen-nings, 808 P.2d at 844. More recently, with regard to the determination of custodial interrogation, we have written at length about the importance of this appellate principle, emphasizing our obligation to independently review mixed questions of law and fact and expressly adopting the Supreme Court’s guidance from Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 113-15, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995), and Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-99,116 S.Ct. 1657,134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). See People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453, 459-61 (Colo.2002). Those holdings, of course, rely upon and were derived largely from its rationale in Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. at 113-18, 106 S.Ct. 445, regarding the due process, voluntariness standard. Until today’s holding — that we defer to a trial court’s conclusion of involuntariness whenever its factual determinations include coercion and susceptibility, maj. op. at 363 — it therefore appeared to be settled that a trial court’s application of the due process standard to find statements involuntary was in the nature of a mixed question of fact and law and was subject to plenary review.
While the voluntariness component of a waiver of Miranda rights and the voluntariness of a statement itself involve similar considerations, see Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), and we have previously followed the Supreme Court’s lead in treating both as questions of law, the effectiveness of a waiver of Miranda rights and the voluntariness of particular statements involve distinctly different inquiries, with distinctly different consequences. See, e.g., Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (distinguishing Miranda from due process violation with regard to derivative evidence); Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (distinguishing Miranda from due process violation for impeachment purposes). Even if a trial court’s application of the correct legal standard for voluntariness were to be treated as a question of fact under certain circumstances, and were entitled to deference by a reviewing court, as the majority now holds, the record in this case could not more clearly demonstrate the district court’s confusion about the applicable legal standard.
Although in one sentence of its 22-page ruling, the district court characterized the defendant’s statements made after learning of the victim’s death as involuntary, that single sentence fell within a lengthy discussion of the defendant’s waiver of her Miranda rights. Specifically, it concluded an inquiry into the voluntariness of the defendant’s waiver and immediately preceded an inquiry whether the waiver was also knowing and intelligent. When asked for clarification about use of these statements for impeachment, the court responded, “But for purposes of impeachment, they were not shown to be involuntary.” Cf Harris, 401 U.S. at 226, 91 S.Ct. 643 (unlike statements that are actually involuntary, statements merely taken in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment). It is therefore far from clear that the district court intended a separate ruling on due process grounds. The majority itself, .in reversing the district court’s Miranda ruling, characterizes that court’s findings on the issue of government coercion as inconsistent. Maj. op. at 357.
In addition to confounding the voluntariness of the defendant’s waiver of her Miranda rights with the voluntariness of her statements, the district court also appeared to conflate the volitional and cognitive aspects, or prongs, of the Miranda inquiry, see Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986); People v. May, 859 P.2d 879 (Colo.1993), making clear its own understanding that “to be voluntary an act must be informed.” In reliance on a holding of this court that was subsequently rejected by the United States Supreme Court, see People v. Spring, 713 P.2d 865 (Colo.1986), rev’d sub nom. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987) (holding instead that a suspect’s awareness of the possible sub*366jects of questioning was not relevant to an effective Miranda waiver)1, it erroneously concluded that the failure to inform the defendant of her victim’s death rendered her Miranda waiver ineffective. Upon that basis, and that basis alone, the court granted the motion to suppress. Ironically, the majority now attributes to the district court a determination that finally informing the defendant of the victim’s death rendered her later statements involuntary.
The majority rejected the district court’s Miranda ruling as confused and inconsistent. See maj. op at 360. Assuming the district court even intended to make a separate ruling on due process grounds, the majority should have rejected that ruling for the same reasons.
Finally, if the majority had exercised its independent legal judgment (as I believe it was obliged to do), the applicable Supreme Court jurisprudence would have mandated a determination that the police conduct in this case did not amount to a violation of due process. Despite some earlier indications that the due process standard required the exclusion of any confession that was not the product of a “rationale intellect and a free will,” Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 208, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960); see also Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961), the Supreme Court has since made abundantly clear that the Due Process Clause is not concerned with the reliability of a defendant’s statements or the defendant’s subjective state of mind, apart from the effects of police overreaching. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 166-67, 107 S.Ct. 515. While the fragility of a suspect’s mental or emotional condition is certainly relevant to the nature and degree of police overreaching necessary for her will to be overborne, the due process analysis is concerned with deterring police misconduct. Id.
As the majority itself finds, the defendant was properly advised of her Miranda rights and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently decided to waive those rights and talk to the police. At no time during the interview, which lasted less than two hours, did she make any attempt to invoke either her right to remain silent or her right to have an attorney present, despite having been expressly informed that she could do so. There was no suggestion that she was threatened or improperly promised anything for her cooperation, much less physically abused in any way. The district court merely found the police tactics to be “psychologically coercive,” on the grounds that the officers tried to take advantage of her emotional state.2
Although Miranda requires police to scrupulously honor any invocation of a suspect’s right to remain silent, see Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), it does not require them to evaluate the suspect’s emotional condition and cease questioning if she becomes too distressed by the realization of what she has done. At least since Connelly, it is clear that the due process standard is not concerned with a suspect’s state of mind, apart from police overreaching. But see People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230 (Colo.1982) (holding the opposite in reliance upon the same “rational intellect” and “free will” interpretation of Cu-lombe and Townsend for which this court was reversed several years later in Connelly ). As long as a suspect is not mistreated by the police or improperly induced to respond by threats or promises, the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogation is adequately offset by the dictates of Miranda, and the reliability of any statements to be used as evidence is separately ensured by local statutes and court rules, Connelly, 479 U.S. at 167,107 S.Ct. 515.
In this case, the defendant was not only willing to answer but consistently sought to excuse her own conduct, even (and perhaps especially) after learning of the victim’s death. Because the police did nothing more *367than persist in interrogating the defendant in the absence of a refusal to answer particular questions or any expression of a desire to terminate the questioning altogether, I do not believe their conduct can be characterized as improper and thereby render admission of the defendant’s statements a violation of the Due Process Clause, regardless of her emotional condition. I would be hard put to explain to these officers where they went wrong or identify for them which of their acts the Due Process Clause seeks to deter.
I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s suppression of all statements made by the defendant after learning of the victim’s death.

. Interestingly, the majority also continues to rely on pre-Colorado v. Spring case law including awareness of the subject matter as a factor in evaluating a Miranda waiver. See maj. op. at 356.

. Although the majority characterizes the district court as concluding "that Humphrey's will had been overborne,” maj. op. at 363, I see no indication that it understood that to be the standard.