People v. Delgado
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 697
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- In April 2014, then-16-year-old Ezekiel Delgado went with two acquaintances to meet a suspected marijuana seller; Delgado shot and killed DeShawne Cannon and Gina Elarms and emptied a 10-shot pistol (multiple-murder special circumstance alleged).
- Delgado was arrested, taken to the station, shackled briefly, then later questioned by a second detective who demanded his phone passcode; Delgado made unwarned admissions and later, after being Mirandized, gave a more detailed warned confession and reenactment; statements and reenactment were video-recorded and shown to the jury.
- Brown and Cober (companions) testified under immunity with differing accounts; defense theory was a false confession to protect friends or imperfect self-defense/voluntary manslaughter; prosecution pursued premeditated and felony murder theories.
- Trial jury convicted Delgado of two counts of first-degree murder, discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle, found the special circumstance and firearm-use enhancement true; total unstayed term 100 years to life.
- On appeal Delgado challenged legality of arrest/detention, Miranda violations, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions (felony murder and voluntary intoxication), due process challenges to intoxication limits, and claimed entitlement to a juvenile transfer hearing under Proposition 57; AG conceded need for transfer hearing.
- The appellate court (published portion) found some unwarned statements should have been excluded because custody had recommenced when police demanded phone access, but the subsequent Mirandized confession was voluntary and admissible; the Miranda error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remanded for juvenile transfer hearing and directed the trial court to consider resentencing/firearm-discretion issues if convictions reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of arrest/detention | Officers had probable cause to arrest based on defendant's own statements that he believed a warrant existed | Arrest was unlawful or detention unlawfully prolonged, tainting statements | Arrest/detention were lawful; probable cause existed and 84-minute interval was not per se unreasonable |
| Miranda/custody for unwarned statements | Police did not deliberately evade Miranda; later warned confession voluntary so admissible | Defendant was in custody when second detective demanded phone access; unwarned statements should be suppressed | Custody had recommenced when phone access was demanded; unwarned statements should have been suppressed, but warned confession was voluntary and admissible |
| Two-step interrogation (Seibert) | Police used no deliberate two-step Miranda-evading strategy; subsequent warnings cured prior unwarned admissions | Interrogation fit Seibert's two-step deliberate strategy so postwarning statements must be excluded | No substantial evidence of deliberate plan to circumvent Miranda; Seibert inapplicable; postwarning statements admissible |
| Prejudice from Miranda error | Admission of warnings and reenactment made later statements decisive | Unwarned statements tainted jury's verdict; error not harmless | Error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because warned confession reenacted and amplified unwarned statements and was central to prosecutor's case |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 396 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1969) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (postwarning statements tainted when police deliberately used a two-step Miranda-evasion technique)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (postwarning statements admissible if knowingly and voluntarily made absent deliberate two-step scheme)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional error)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2012) (custody determination uses whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1983) (Beheler admonitions re: noncustodial interviews)
- People v. Celis, 33 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 2004) (probable cause standard discussion)