People v. Bejasa
205 Cal. App. 4th 26
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bejasa involved in a collision injuring his passenger; he was found with two syringes, one containing methamphetamine, and admitted use while on parole.
- He was handcuffed and detained for a possible parole violation before Miranda warnings; later released from custody and questioned by another officer without warnings.
- Police conducted field sobriety tests and an interview; the Romberg test involved estimating 30 seconds and yielded a 25-second result.
- He was charged with driving under the influence of a drug, causing great bodily injury, transporting a controlled substance, and driving without a license; prior convictions and strikes were alleged.
- The trial court admitted custodial statements and Romberg evidence, denied suppression, and ultimately imposed a life-maximum sentence on counts 1 and 2; sentencing issues were later remanded.
- On appeal, the court held custodial statements were improperly admitted but harmless, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing with a stay on count 2 under Penal Code 654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Miranda custody at time of questioning | Bejasa was in custody before Miranda warnings. | Custodial handling was minimal and not custody. | Custody found; Miranda warnings required for interrogation. |
| Testimonial nature of Romberg estimation | Romberg estimation is testimonial under Muniz. | Romberg is non-testimonial like counting. | Romberg estimation deemed testimonial; Miranda warnings required. |
| Harmless error analysis | Admission of statements and Romberg evidence prejudicial. | Error likely influenced the verdict. | Error harmless beyond reasonable doubt given strong corroborating evidence. |
| Sentencing discretion for count 2; stay under 654 | Discretion exercised in sentencing. | Court failed to exercise discretion properly. | New sentencing hearing required; stay of count 2 mandatory under 654. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Pilster, 138 Cal.App.4th 1395 (Cal. App. 2006) (factors for custody analysis; on-scene questioning and custody standards)
- People v. Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th 1162 (Cal. App. 1996) (multiple factors in custody determination)
- Milham, 159 Cal.App.3d 487 (Cal. App. 1984) (general on-the-scene questioning; shift to accusatory questioning)
- Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (testimonial vs physical evidence; Muniz framework)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (custodial detention standards in traffic stops)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1994) (custody assessment; objective standard)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requirement of warnings before custodial interrogation)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard)