Court Opinion

ID: 9596136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:46:22.765579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:32.891674
License: Public Domain

BACA, Justice (dissenting). I would affirm the district court and admit the testimony regarding Ybarra’s statements to Nurse Price. I believe the statements neither resulted from police interrogation nor its functional equivalent, and accordingly, Ybarra’s statements were not elicited in violation of Miranda. “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.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 522, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). The purpose of the Miranda warnings is to “prevent[ ] governmental officials from using the coercive nature of confinement to extract confessions that would not be given in an unrestrained environment.” Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 529-30, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 1936, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (1987). The police did not exercise their potentially coercive power to obtain a confession, and I do not believe that constitutional protections would be perverted by the district court’s admission of Ybarra’s statements. Miranda warnings are required when the person in custody is subjected to an interrogation. Interrogation is defined as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the person has been taken into custody.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (emphasis added). This meaning has been expanded to “refer[ ] not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police ... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 303, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1691, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1987) (emphasis added). Accord State v. Edwards, 97 N.M. 141, 143-44, 637 P.2d 572, 574-75 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 97 N.M. 621, 642 P.2d 607 (1981) (custodial interrogation occurs when the person in custody is exposed to either express questioning or its functional equivalent). In the instant case, although uncontroverted that Ybarra was in police custody, the officer did not expressly interrogate Ybarra.1 A nurse acting as a private individual questioned Ybarra. Protections against self-incrimination do not apply to “confessions elicited by private individuals.” People v. Miller, 137 A.D.2d 626, 628, 524 N.Y.S.2d 727, 729 (1988). Accordingly, in Miller the court admitted statements elicited by the suspect’s mother in the presence of the police because the mother was not acting as a police agent. In the instant case, the district court found: “[Tjhere was no plan between officer Wright or any other Artesia police officer and the nurse to elicit information to assist them in a prosecution.” Nurse Price was neither an agent of the police, nor, as discussed below, was she used as a police instrumentality intended to subject Ybarra to an express interrogation. Because there was no express questioning of Ybarra, the next line of inquiry is whether the circumstances of the exchange between the nurse and Ybarra constituted the functional equivalent of express questioning. In other words, did Officer Wright’s actions rise to the level of interrogation. To resolve this question we should consider both the intent of the officers and the existence of compulsion from the perspective of Ybarra. See Mauro, 481 U.S. at 520, 107 S.Ct. at 1931. In Mauro, the Court examined the intent of the police and found that although the police were present during the suspect’s conversation with his wife at the police station there was no interrogation. In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted that the officers had not acted with the intent to elicit incriminating statements, and they had not participated in or instigated the suspect’s conversation with his wife. Id. at 528, 107 S.Ct. at 1936. In the instant case, Officer Wright brought Ybarra to the emergency room for treatment and not to elicit incriminating statements. Security concerns required the officer’s presence in the treatment room. Until the end of the exchange between the nurse and Ybarra, Officer Wright remained silent. Nothing suggests that Officer Wright encouraged or colluded with the nurse. In other words, Officer Wright did not instigate or participate in the challenged conversation between the nurse and Ybarra. Furthermore, although Officer Wright may have known that the possibility of incrimination may have existed, “officers do not interrogate a suspect by hoping that he will incriminate himself.” Id. at 529, 107 S.Ct. at 1936. Absent any active police participation, or any plan to compel Ybarra to make such incriminating statements, Officer Wright’s conduct, under the first prong of the test, did not constitute express questioning or its functional equivalent. The next consideration is Ybarra’s perception of the official compulsion flowing from the atmosphere in the emergency room. The majority found that the coupling of Ybarra’s custody with the nurse’s questions created an environment that was inherently coercive. I disagree. The officer’s presence served a legitimate security function and did not produce official compulsion above the level inherent in the custody itself. Ybarra’s being in custody, while itself producing some anxiety, could not turn the nurse’s discussion with him into an interrogation. The nurse could not exert official pressure such that her questions would constitute an interrogation. Cf. Mauro (no official compulsion was found where the incriminating conversation was recorded at a police station with the police officers present). The majority objects to the officer’s conduct because he took advantage of the situation. However, so long as Officer Wright’s conduct complied with constitutional requirements, taking advantage of an investigative lead does not violate Miranda. Whether such action was fair in any sense other than its constitutionality is irrelevant to the issue before us. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s decision to admit the testimony. The decision, however, should be sustained under the “right for any reason” doctrine. See State v. Hensel, 106 N.M. 8, 738 P.2d 126 (Ct.App.) (trial court will be affirmed on appeal if right for any reason), cert. denied, 105 N.M. 720, 737 P.2d 79, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 958, 108 S.Ct. 358, 98 L.Ed.2d 383 (1987). The “rescue doctrine” does not apply to these facts.  . After Ybarra had made his incriminating statement to the nurse, Officer Wright did ask Ybarra one question regarding the whereabouts of the knife. The district court, however, properly excluded that conversation; this analysis applies to the activity leading up to that improper question.