People v. Clark CA3
C076713
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 8, 2022Background
- Defendant Donald Clark (72) was convicted of three murders and arson after admitting in recorded interviews that he shot three people (two juveniles and a 46‑year‑old woman), then disposed of evidence and burned the victims’ car. He received, inter alia, two life‑without‑parole terms.
- About one week after the killings, detectives executed a search of defendant’s rural property, briefly flex‑cuffed him (≈5 minutes), then invited him to the sheriff’s department for a recorded interview; he agreed and was transported voluntarily.
- The interview took place in an unlocked “soft interview room” with a couch and a glass window in the door; defendant was offered coffee, told multiple times he was not under arrest and free to leave, and was uncuffed throughout the interview itself.
- During a roughly two‑hour conversational interview (three officers plus a deputy district attorney at times), detectives questioned defendant about multiple people and circumstances; defendant eventually admitted shooting the victims in self‑defense and later led officers to locations and items relevant to the crime.
- Defendant moved to suppress his statements, arguing the interview was custodial (Miranda required); the trial court denied suppression; on appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the interview was noncustodial under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recorded interview at the sheriff’s facility was custodial such that Miranda warnings were required | Interview was noncustodial: defendant came voluntarily, handcuffs were brief and removed before questioning, he was told multiple times he was not under arrest and could leave, the room was unlocked and conversational, items (phone/money) were left in the car | The prior detention, brief handcuffing, removal of phone/money, small room, 3‑to‑1 officer ratio, accusatory questioning, length and control of interrogation, and the planned walk‑through evidenced custody | Affirmed: not custodial. Under Aguilera factors and totality of circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest; statements admissible |
| Whether post‑Miranda statements made after leaving the sheriff’s facility must be suppressed as tainted by an earlier Miranda violation | No suppression necessary because the initial interview was noncustodial | Post‑Miranda statements are tainted by prior unwarned custodial interrogation | Not addressed on merits: court declined to reach this claim after concluding the initial interview was noncustodial |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established Miranda warnings requirement for custodial interrogation)
- People v. Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th 1151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (sets out multi‑factor custody analysis for Miranda)
- People v. Moore, 51 Cal.4th 386 (Cal. 2011) (custody inquiry asks whether reasonable person would feel freedom restrained to degree associated with formal arrest)
- People v. Bejasa, 205 Cal.App.4th 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (same standard described; custody requires restraint of degree associated with formal arrest)
- In re Joseph R., 65 Cal.App.4th 954 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (brief handcuffing followed by release and questioning can be noncustodial)
- People v. Thomas, 51 Cal.4th 449 (Cal. 2011) (cites Joseph R. approvingly on noncustodial post‑restraint questioning)
- People v. Potter, 66 Cal.App.5th 528 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (police station interview alone does not automatically create custody)
- People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 1998) (secure police facility presence does not necessarily establish custody)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (U.S. 1994) (officer’s undisclosed belief that person is a suspect is irrelevant to custody inquiry)
- People v. Saldana, 19 Cal.App.5th 432 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (contrast: where questioning’s sole purpose was to obtain a confession and police already believed defendant culpable, custodial finding favored)
- People v. Delgado, 27 Cal.App.5th 1092 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (police retention of a cell phone before permitting a suspect to leave can indicate custody)