People v. Cowart
244 P.3d 1199
| Colo. | 2010Background
- Cowart was interrogated at his home the night of August 29, 2009, after S.L. alleged she was raped by Cowart, leading to a pre-arrest interview by Marshal Daniels.
- Cowart’s wife, who was in a wheelchair, was present during the interview in Cowart’s living room at his home.
- Daniels obtained no Miranda warnings before the pre-arrest interview and Cowart later invoked his right to counsel after arrest.
- A jailhouse interview occurred on November 11, 2009, during which Daniels interviewed Cowart for over an hour despite Cowart having representation and having previously invoked rights.
- The trial court suppressed Cowart’s pre-arrest statements and barred Daniels from testifying in the People’s case, finding Cowart was in custody for Miranda purposes during the pre-arrest interview.
- The People appealed the suppression and the prohibition on Daniels’ testimony, challenging the custody finding and the broad witness ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cowart in custody for Miranda purposes during the pre-arrest interview? | Cowart in custody; necessary Miranda advisement prior to arrest. | Not in custody; interview non-coercive and voluntary. | Cowart was not in custody; Miranda advisement not required. |
| Did the trial court err in prohibiting the People from calling Marshal Daniels during its case in chief? | Prohibition justified as suppression/constitutional violation remedy. | Prohibition was improper, overly broad, and unwarranted. | The broad prohibition was improper; reversed in part to allow testimony. |
| Does the appellate court have jurisdiction to review the trial court's suppression and witness-prohibition orders under C.A.R. 4.1? | Jurisdiction exists under Crim. P. 41(g)/41(e) as suppression-related. | Proceedings may fall outside permitted review if not properly framed. | Jurisdiction exists; review proper under C.A.R. 4.1. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2002) (objective custody test for Miranda; totality of circumstances)
- People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215 (Colo. 2009) (custody determination must be objective; avoid subjective factors)
- People v. Trujillo, 785 P.2d 1290 (Colo. 1990) (custody factors and custody standard under Miranda)
- People v. Pascual, 111 P.3d 471 (Colo. 2005) (totality of circumstances in custody analysis)
- People v. Holt, 233 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2010) (free-to-leave concept and custody context in custody analysis)
- Elmarr v. State, 181 P.3d 1157 (Colo. 2008) (unarticulated thoughts of officers irrelevant to custody)
- People v. Polander, 41 P.3d 698 (Colo. 2001) (notion of freedom to leave in custody analysis for Miranda)
- Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (physical fruits of unwarned but voluntary statements not suppressed)