People v. Carter, 2015 COA 36

Background

In 2004 shootings, Marshall-Fields (an eyewitness) was later confronted at a bar; Carter approached him at the direction of co-defendants; the next night Marshall-Fields and his fiancée were killed.
Police identified Carter from surveillance video, arrested him about a year later, and recorded a two‑hour custodial interrogation; no attorney was present.
Before questioning the detective told Carter: “You have the right to remain silent… You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed to you…” (advisal lasted ~10–15 seconds).
Carter was tried, acquitted of first‑degree murder and bribery, but convicted of conspiracy to commit first‑degree murder, intimidating a witness, and unlawful distribution of a controlled substance; the videotaped interrogation was admitted over his objection.
The court of appeals held (1) the oral advisal “you have the right to have an attorney” was inadequate under Miranda because it did not reasonably convey the right to have counsel present before and during interrogation, but (2) admission of the tape was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to at least the drug distribution conviction; the jury had unfettered access to the videotape during deliberations, which the court upheld.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Carter’s Argument	Held
Adequacy of Miranda advisal	The four core Miranda rights were conveyed; ‘‘right to have an attorney’’ was sufficient.	The advisal was deficient: it failed to inform Carter he had the right to have counsel present before and during interrogation.	Held: The phrasing "the right to have an attorney" without more did not reasonably convey the right to counsel during interrogation — Miranda violation.
Preservation of Miranda claim	The motion to suppress raised inadequate-advisal concerns generally; thus preserved.	Defense preserved issue via motion and hearing questioning; district court considered adequacy.	Held: Majority (Fox) and Ney: preserved. Judge J. Jones would have found the specific argument unpreserved but concurred in result.
Harmless‑error analysis	The tape contained no confession; other strong, corroborative evidence supported convictions so any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (esp. drug count).	Admission was prejudicial because prosecution used the tape to show Carter could form requisite intent (esp. for conspiracy and witness intimidation).	Held: Majority: error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (affirm convictions). Judge Ney: would find harmless only as to drug conviction and would reverse conspiracy and intimidation convictions.
Jury access to videotaped interrogation	The recording was the defendant’s own statements (not testimonial third‑party evidence); unfettered access was permissible and helpful for credibility assessment.	Defense sought supervised access only and limited access to transcript.	Held: Unfettered jury access to the videotape (and transcript upon request) was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct.) (establishing custodial‑interrogation warnings including right to counsel during questioning)
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010) (advisals are adequate if they reasonably convey Miranda rights, including right to have counsel present)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (Miranda language need not be talismanic; adequacy judged on reasonable conveyance)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (condemning interrogation strategies that minimize or withhold Miranda to obtain statements)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (constitutional errors are reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Raile v. People, 148 P.3d 126 (Colo.) (factors to evaluate harmlessness of constitutional error)
People v. Trujillo, 49 P.3d 316 (Colo. 2002) (statements obtained without adequate Miranda warnings are excluded)