2019 COA 57
Colo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile B.D. and two others burglarized two homes; one homeowner (age 77) encountered an intruder (K.K.) fleeing.
- Police located three juveniles nearby minutes later, separated them, and questioned each; Sergeant Tomasetti asked B.D. (age 16) about contraband. B.D. said he had alcohol in his backpack and twice consented to a search. Officers found vodka and an iPad later identified as stolen. Fingerprints from booking matched prints in a burglarized home.
- Magistrate adjudicated B.D. delinquent: two counts of felony burglary, two counts of theft (one misdemeanor; one enhanced to class 5 felony under the at-risk-person enhancer because an accomplice committed part of the theft in the presence of a 77-year-old victim). District court affirmed on review.
- B.D. appealed, arguing (1) suppression errors (Miranda/custodial interrogation; involuntary consent; improper fingerprinting) and (2) insufficient evidence to adjudicate him as a complicitor to theft from an at-risk person.
- Court of Appeals affirmed suppression rulings (no Miranda violation; consent voluntary; fingerprints admissible) but reversed the enhanced-theft adjudication and remanded for resentencing to misdemeanor theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.D. was in custody for Miranda purposes when he told officers he had alcohol in his backpack | People: Not custody; interrogation was brief, conversational, public, and noncoercive | B.D.: Objective circumstances (separation, multiple officers) made it custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings | Held: Not custodial; Miranda not required for that statement |
| Whether B.D.'s consent to search his backpack was voluntary | People: Consent was voluntary given calm questioning, repeated two requests, and no coercion | B.D.: Juvenile age and police context rendered consent involuntary | Held: Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Whether fingerprints obtained at booking were fruit of unlawful search and thus inadmissible | People: Arrest, booking, and fingerprinting lawful; prior steps lawful so fingerprints admissible | B.D.: Fingerprints flowed from alleged unlawful interrogation/search, so should be suppressed | Held: Fingerprints admissible; no unlawful interrogation or search occurred |
| Whether a complicitor can be held liable for a strict-liability sentence enhancer (theft "in the presence of" an at-risk person) without awareness that the enhancer circumstance would occur | People: Dual-mental-state rule need not apply to sentence enhancers; complicitor may be liable even without awareness | B.D.: Under People v. Childress, complicitor liability for strict-liability offenses requires both intent to aid and awareness of attendant circumstances; awareness must extend to sentence enhancers | Held: Childress dual-mental-state requirement applies to strict-liability sentence enhancers; no evidence B.D. was aware the theft would occur in the presence of an at-risk person, so enhanced felony reversed and remanded for misdemeanor resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional rule requiring warnings when suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (voluntary statements may give rise to admissible physical evidence despite Miranda violation)
- People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698 (circumstances supporting custody analysis for Miranda purposes)
- People v. Cowart, 244 P.3d 1199 (Miranda exclusion and admissibility of physical fruits of voluntary unwarned statements)
- Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (discussion regarding sentencing factors vs. elements post-Blakely)