People v. Potter
C088889
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- Defendant Robert William Potter was accused by his daughter H. of repeated oral copulation when she was five; at trial H. testified and Potter was convicted of one count of oral copulation with a child 10 or younger and sentenced to 15 years to life.
- After a prior disclosure and a contentious phone call with Detective Wirtz, Potter voluntarily came to the station two weeks later to take a polygraph and speak with detectives.
- He had a 30‑minute pre‑polygraph interview with Detective VonSchoech (told he was free to leave), then two interviews with Detective Wirtz (one unrecorded, then a recorded follow‑up); total questioning was under two hours.
- During the station interviews Potter admitted multiple incidents, wrote an apology letter, was allowed to leave, and was arrested three days later; he later moved to exclude the statements as custodial Miranda violations.
- At trial defense counsel asked H. limited competency questions; H. had prior admissible statements and the court had previously found her competent under Evid. Code §1360; the prosecution amended an information count to change the listed location; court imposed fines and assessments Potter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stationhouse interviews were custodial (Miranda) | Not custodial: Potter came voluntarily, was told he could leave, not restrained, interviews were non‑coercive and under two hours | Interrogation was custodial because he was questioned as a suspect at the station after an aggressive phone call; Miranda warnings were required (citing Saldana/Torres) | Not custodial; confession admissible. Court applied totality of circumstances and Moore to find Potter would have felt free to leave |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to H.’s competency | Counsel’s choice was reasonable; prior findings and H.’s later testimony supported competency | Counsel deficient: H. initially answered she couldn’t tell truth from lie, so voir dire/objection required | No ineffective assistance. Tactical decision reasonable; prior competency findings and testimony undermined claim (Strickland standard) |
| Whether amendment of the information during trial (changing location) was improper | Amendment permitted under §1009; place is immaterial and preliminary evidence (including defendant’s confession) gave notice | Amendment added a new factual charge not shown at the prelim and prejudiced defense | Amendment allowed. Location is immaterial; preliminary hearing evidence supported the amendment and gave sufficient notice |
| Whether court erred in finding Potter able to pay fines/assessments | Court’s ability‑to‑pay finding adequate (defendant young, can work in prison); Dueñas not followed | Dueñas requires pre‑imposition ability‑to‑pay inquiry; Potter cannot pay | Fines/assessments affirmed. Court rejected Dueñas as wrongly decided and found substantial basis for ability‑to‑pay determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (established custodial interrogation warnings requirement)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- People v. Moore, 51 Cal.4th 386 (2011) (framework for custody inquiry under Miranda)
- People v. Saldana, 19 Cal.App.5th 432 (2018) (voluntary interview became custodial due to persistent accusatory questioning)
- People v. Torres, 25 Cal.App.5th 162 (2018) (custody found where detectives controlled setting and used pressure/interrogation techniques)
- People v. Aguilera, 51 Cal.App.4th 1151 (1996) (police statements implying interview would not end until truth obtained relevant to custody)
- People v. Jennings, 53 Cal.3d 334 (1991) (preliminary hearing evidence, not detailed information, supplies notice of charges)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held ability‑to‑pay finding required; court here rejects its expansion)