People v. Erik Jamal Newton, 2022 COA 59

Defendant Erik Jamal Newton shot and killed Zachary Greenstreet, later confessed at a custodial police interview, and admitted burying the gun in a cemetery.
At the station officers read a written Miranda form but one officer wrongly told Newton the "only way" to have an attorney present during questioning was to pay for one.
Newton expressed confusion and that he could not afford an attorney; after the officers’ exchanged explanations (which did not correct the misstatement), Newton signed a waiver and gave a detailed confession admitting murder and concealing the gun.
At trial the People relied heavily on that confession to prove premeditation for first-degree murder and to show tampering with physical evidence.
On appeal the court held the officers’ affirmative misstatement and failure to correct Newton’s confusion rendered his Miranda waiver invalid, requiring suppression of the confession and reversing both convictions as not harmless error.
The court also held, separately, that the evidence (including Newton’s statement that he buried the gun because he "didn't want to get caught") was sufficient to support the tampering conviction and thus the People may retry that charge without the confession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Miranda waiver	People: Advisement was adequate; defendant voluntarily waived after written warning and oral clarification.	Newton: Officers misled him about appointment of counsel and left him confused, so his waiver was not knowing and intelligent.	Court: Waiver invalid — officer’s affirmative misstatement that only paying would secure counsel and failure to correct confusion made waiver uninformed; confession must be suppressed.
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering	People: Evidence (including defendant’s burial of the gun and his statement he didn’t want to get caught) supports that he believed an official proceeding was about to be instituted and intended to impair availability of evidence.	Newton: Retrieval of the gun before arrest shows no intent to impair availability for a proceeding.	Court: Evidence sufficient — intent assessed at time of burial; burial and defendant’s admission support belief a proceeding was imminent and intent to impair availability; tampering conviction may be retried.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirements for custodial warnings and right to counsel)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (Fifth Amendment right to counsel protects dealing with police only through counsel)
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (Miranda advisement adequate if rights are reasonably conveyed)
People v. Al‑Yousif, 49 P.3d 1165 (Colo. 2002) (defendant’s understanding of rights as waiver issue)
Frayer v. People, 684 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1984) (concealment can support finding defendant believed an official proceeding was about to be instituted)
People v. Atencio, 140 P.3d 73 (Colo. App. 2005) (tampering statute applies even when defendant acts before certainty of arrest or discovery)
People v. Candelaria, 107 P.3d 1080 (Colo. App. 2004) (sufficiency of evidence to infer tampering when weapon not found)