People v. Godbolt CA2/2
B302235S
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Three East Coast Crips members (Godbolt, Ray, Wise) were jointly tried and convicted of first‑degree murder (Florencio Ramirez), four attempted murders, and shooting at an inhabited building; lengthy aggregate sentences were imposed and appeals followed.
- Investigators used recorded jailhouse "Perkins" operations (paid confidential informants posing as inmates) to elicit inculpatory admissions from each defendant; police intermittently removed defendants for brief formal interviews (a tactic called a "stimulation").
- Trial court admitted the recorded jailhouse statements, ruled they were voluntary, and admitted them as declarations against penal interest; the court denied defense requests for informant disclosure and declined to give an accomplice caution instruction.
- On appeal defendants argued Miranda and due process violations (including post‑invocation undercover questioning), involuntariness/coercion, testimonial Confrontation Clause problems, hearsay/declaration‑against‑interest and accomplice‑witness instruction issues, insufficiency of evidence as to one attempted murder, and errors in fines/abstracts.
- Court of Appeal held the Perkins line of authority controls so Miranda warnings were not required for the undercover informant conversations, found the statements voluntary and nontestimonial, affirmed all convictions except reversed the attempted‑murder conviction as to Manuel Jimenez for insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill him; remanded for sentencing and abstract corrections.
- Supreme Court denied review (without prejudice pending People v. Kopp); Justice Liu dissented, urging review of the legality of undercover questioning after a suspect has invoked Miranda rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miranda warnings were required for undercover informant questioning in jail | Perkins allows undercover agents to elicit incriminating statements without Miranda | Perkins does not excuse impermissible coercion or post‑invocation interrogation; Miranda should bar such questioning | Perkins controls: Miranda not required for unwitting statements to undercover informant absent custodial police interrogation |
| Voluntariness / coercion (including "stimulation" tactic and deception) | Statements were voluntary; "stimulation" and deception do not overbear will here | Informant/police tactics (false evidence, simulation, psychological pressure) rendered statements involuntary | Statements were voluntary on the record; deception and stimulation did not rise to coercion that overbore free will |
| Whether statements were testimonial (Confrontation Clause) | Statements to an unwitting informant are nontestimonial and do not trigger Crawford | Statements were effectively solicited for prosecution and thus testimonial | Statements were nontestimonial (Davis/Bourjaily/Arauz line): defendants did not reasonably expect use at trial |
| Admissibility as declarations against penal interest / accomplice caution instruction | Statements were declarations against penal interest and sufficiently reliable; accomplice instruction unnecessary | Statements were not sufficiently trustworthy; accomplice caution should have been given | Admission as declarations against penal interest was proper; accomplice instruction not required because statements were trustworthy and corroborated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder of Manuel Jimenez | Firing at group supports attempt against each member | No evidence specific intent to kill Jimenez or that he was a target | Convictions for attempted murder of Jimenez reversed for lack of evidence of specific intent to kill him |
| Disclosure of informant identity / records (defense discovery request) | Non‑disclosure protects informant safety and was supported by in camera review | Defense needed informant information for impeachment and voluntariness inquiry | Trial court's denial upheld: substantial evidence supported nondisclosure and the court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1990) (undercover agent posing as inmate need not give Miranda warnings)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause governs testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (statements unwittingly made to informant are nontestimonial)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1966) (government deception by informant does not violate Fifth Amendment per se)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1964) (post‑indictment elicitation by government agent implicates Sixth Amendment)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (invocation of right to counsel cuts off police‑initiated interrogation)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (statement involuntariness standard: product of rational intellect and free will)
- People v. Dykes, 46 Cal.4th 731 (Cal. 2009) (federal/state voluntariness standards and review scope)
- People v. Arauz, 210 Cal.App.4th 1394 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (statements made unwittingly to informant are nontestimonial)