People v. Bichara
212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 895
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Defendant Armando Bichara was convicted of first‑degree murder (Pen. Code §187) and kidnapping (§207(a)) after a fatal stabbing in a car; surveillance video and eyewitnesses corroborated parts of the victim’s girlfriend’s testimony.
- After arrest, detectives read Miranda warnings; during the second interview defendant twice said he did not want to talk and then said, "I refuse to talk to you guys. There. That's my side of the story," after which detectives continued questioning and he made inculpatory statements.
- The prosecutor initially said she would not introduce the recorded interviews in her case‑in‑chief but later changed course; defense counsel made a general Miranda objection, then withdrew objections and did not specifically press that defendant had invoked his right to remain silent.
- The recorded interview (redacted) was played for the jury; the prosecutor relied on defendant’s post‑invocation admissions in arguing the murder charge but did not rely on them for the kidnapping charge.
- On appeal the court concluded the invocation issue was forfeited for lack of a timely, specific objection, but that trial counsel’s failure to preserve the Miranda‑invocation claim amounted to ineffective assistance as to the murder conviction. The murder conviction was reversed, the kidnapping conviction was affirmed, and the case was remanded for retrial option on murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bichara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post‑arrest statements after defendant said he refused to talk | Statements were admissible; any Miranda point forfeited because defense did not make a specific objection | Defendant argued he unambiguously invoked Miranda and the subsequent confession was inadmissible | Forfeited at trial for lack of specific, timely objection, but court finds the statement was an unambiguous invocation and should have been excluded |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to post‑invocation admission | Forfeiture stands; no ineffective assistance because no prejudice or tactical reason to object lacking | Counsel’s failure to object was unreasonable and deprived defendant of effective assistance; prejudice as to murder conviction | Trial counsel was ineffective: performance deficient and prejudicial as to murder conviction; murder conviction reversed |
| Prejudice analysis — murder conviction | Admission of confession was harmless because other evidence (victim testimony, knife evidence) supported conviction | Exclusion of confession would likely have changed outcome given heavy reliance on confession in rebuttal and credibility attack on witness | Prejudice found as to murder: reasonable probability of different outcome without confession; reversal required |
| Prejudice analysis — kidnapping conviction | Any Miranda error harmless; kidnapping supported by independent evidence (video, two eyewitnesses, victim testimony) and prosecutor did not rely on confession for kidnapping | Miranda taint infected both charges because kidnapping and murder were intertwined; confession materially aided kidnapping verdict | No prejudice as to kidnapping: conviction affirmed because independent video and eyewitness corroboration made error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings and suspect may invoke right to remain silent)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (an invocation must be unambiguous to require cessation of questioning)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficiency and prejudice)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (prejudice standard when counsel fails to file suppression motion)
- People v. Rundle, 43 Cal.4th 76 (2008) (generic objections do not preserve specific Miranda invocation claims)
- People v. Cahill, 5 Cal.4th 478 (1993) (inadmissible confessions are especially prejudicial; often the ‘‘evidentiary bombshell’’)
- People v. Jackson, 1 Cal.5th 269 (2016) (review of admissibility of recorded statements and standards for post‑invocation statements)