Court Opinion

ID: 9591234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:03:07.622151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:08.440445
License: Public Domain

Justice ROVIRA
dissenting:
The majority concedes that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are insufficient to determine whether the defendant was in custody at the time of his statement. Nevertheless, it holds that the trial court’s “implied findings” of fact are marginally sufficient to permit appellate review regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement. Because I believe that the trial court’s findings are inadequate to permit meaningful appellate review of the voluntariness issue, I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court’s findings, regarding whether the defendant was in custody at the time of his statement, are inadequate. The test for determining whether a person is in custody is an objective one, which considers whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe that he was deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. See, e.g., People v. Viduya, 703 P.2d 1281 (Colo.1985). In making this determination, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances under which the questioning occurred. This determination is a question of fact, which will not be reversed upon appeal, when the findings are supported by *1112competent evidence and the correct legal standard is applied. Here, the trial court’s findings of fact are inadequate to evaluate whether the defendant was in custody at the time of the statement. The trial court’s findings, regarding the voluntariness of the defendant’s statement, are similarly deficient.
To be admissible against the accused at trial, the statement must have been voluntarily made. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). A statement is voluntary if it is the product of rational intellect and a free will, unaffected by improper influence, coercion, threats or promises. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); People v. Rhodes, 729 P.2d 982 (Colo.1986). In resolving the voluntariness issue, the trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances under which the statement was given, including:
[T]he atmosphere and events surrounding the elicitation of the statement, such as the use of violence, -threats, promises, improper influence or official misconduct, the conduct of the defendant before and during the interrogation and the defendant’s mental condition at the time the statement is made.
People v. Pearson, 725 P.2d 782, 783 (Colo.1986) (citations omitted).
In reaching its conclusion, the court must “engage both in factfinding — a specific inquiry into the historical phenomena of the case — and law application, which involves the application of the controlling legal standard to the facts established by the evidence.” People v. Quezada, 731 P.2d 730, 732 (Colo.1987). The trial court’s findings of historical fact are entitled to deference and will not be overturned on appeal if supported by competent evidence.
The trial court, however, must make sufficiently clear and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record to permit meaningful appellate review. I disagree with the majority’s contention that “the trial court’s implied findings of facts are just marginally sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.” At 1110.
Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary within the meaning of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 163-64, 107 S.Ct. 515, 520, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986), the Court stated that:
[T]he eases considered by this Court over the 50 years since Brown v. Mississippi [297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936) ] have focused upon the crucial element of police overreaching. While each confession case has turned on its own set of factors justifying the conclusion that police conduct was oppressive, all have contained a substantial element of coercive police conduct. Absent police conduct causally related to the confession, there is simply no basis for concluding that any state actor has deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law. Respondent correctly notes that as interrogators have turned to more subtle forms of psychological persuasion, courts have found the mental condition of the defendant a more significant factor in the “voluntariness” calculus. But this fact does not justify a conclusion that a defendant’s mental condition, by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional “voluntariness”.
Here, there is conflicting testimony regarding what took place at the interview. Weyler testified that he did not threaten the defendant in any way, informed the defendant that he was free to leave at anytime, and told the defendant that he was not under arrest. This testimony is inconsistent with the defendant’s account of the interview. The trial court’s findings of fact, however, do not directly address this critical issue of credibility. Without such a finding, meaningful review of whether the defendant’s statements are the product of coercive police conduct cannot be made. Absent a finding of official misconduct, I see no reason to indulge in a presumption of involuntariness based upon “implied findings.”
Further, the trial court’s findings of fact do not address the defendant’s “fragile” *1113mental condition.1 The majority independently reviews the record and concludes that: “Weyler, aware of [the defendant’s] fragile mental and emotional condition, exploited [the defendant’s] weaknesses to obtain the confession.” At 1112. The resort to such an inquiry further illustrates the inadequacy of the trial court’s findings of fact.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to say that Justice VOLLACK and Justice MULLARKEY join in this dissent.

. The only reference to the defendant’s mental condition occurs in the trial court’s conclusions of law, in which it states that in "assessing credibility of witnesses and considering the atmosphere surrounding the interrogation, the use of threats, the conduct of the defendant and his mental condition at the time the statement was made, it was not a voluntary admission.” (Emphasis added.)