Carter v. People, 2017 CO 59

Carter was charged with multiple counts including conspiracy to commit first-degree murder related to a drive-by killing; he was convicted of conspiracy and other charges and sentenced to 70 years total.
Before trial Carter was videotaped during a custodial police interrogation after receiving an oral Miranda advisement; interrogation lasted ~90–120 minutes and ended when he invoked rights.
At a multi-day suppression hearing the district court denied Carter’s motion to suppress: it found the Miranda warnings adequate, Carter’s waiver effective, and statements voluntary.
At trial the prosecution played the interrogation video and provided a transcript as a demonstrative; the trial court allowed the jury unrestricted access to both during deliberations (with a caution that the transcript is interpretive).
The court of appeals issued a fractured panel decision but ultimately affirmed; the Colorado Supreme Court granted review on the adequacy of the Miranda advisement and whether allowing jury access to the interrogation exhibits was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Carter's Argument	People/Prosecution's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Miranda advisement re: right to counsel (timing: before and during interrogation)	The warning (“You have the right to have an attorney”) failed to clearly convey the right to consult with and have counsel present before and during questioning; therefore warnings were inadequate and statements should be suppressed.	The advisement reasonably conveyed the right to counsel in the custodial context, particularly when read in totality with the detective’s prefatory remark that rights were a prerequisite to any questioning.	Affirmed: warnings reasonably conveyed the right to consult with counsel both before and during interrogation; no suppression.
Trial court’s discretion to allow jury access to interrogation video and transcript during deliberations	Unrestricted access would unfairly prejudice the jury because detectives’ accusatory statements could unduly influence deliberations; requested restriction.	Video/transcript were probative of Carter’s mental capacity and demeanor; trial courts traditionally have discretion and confessions/admissions historically may go to jury room.	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting unrestricted access; transcript accompanied a cautionary instruction.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial-warning rule and right to counsel during interrogation)
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (warnings need not be verbatim; inquiry is whether warnings reasonably convey Miranda rights)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (Miranda wording need not be rigid; assess warnings in totality)
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (Miranda does not demand a talismanic formulation)
Frasco v. People, 165 P.3d 701 (Colo.) (trial court discretion and caution re: jury access to exhibits that substitute for testimony)
People v. Gingles, 350 P.3d 968 (Colo. App.) (discussing historical treatment of confessions for jury access)
Rael v. People, 395 P.3d 772 (Colo.) (distinguishing testimonial evidence from party admissions for jury access)
People v. Jefferson, 393 P.3d 493 (Colo.) (contrast: abuse of discretion where improper considerations governed access to testimonial exhibits)