People v. Torres
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Torres (73) rented a room in a household with a 5‑year‑old child, Y.C.; mother reported the child said Torres touched her "colita."
- Forensic medical exam showed no physical findings; a forensic interview recorded the child alleging repeated touching to her vagina over clothing.
- Two detectives (one Spanish‑speaking) met Torres at his residence, told him he was not under arrest and free to leave, then interviewed him in an unmarked car with doors closed and the engine running; detectives said a DNA test was running in the trunk.
- During a prolonged, accusatory interview the detectives used minimization, presented (false) evidence, and told Torres they would write a report for the judge and would leave only after he told the truth; Torres ultimately admitted touching the child twice.
- Defense counsel did not move to suppress Torres’s statements or request a Miranda hearing; the statements were admitted at trial and were highly probative of the prosecution’s case. On appeal the court requested supplemental briefing on whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression under Miranda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the police interview became custodial (Miranda required) | Interview was custodial because detectives dominated the setting, used false evidence/minimization, and effectively told Torres he could not leave until he told the truth | Interview was non‑custodial: Torres consented, was told he was free to leave, not restrained, and was not arrested at the scene | Custodial: totality of circumstances showed a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview; Miranda warnings were required |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress under Miranda | Failure to seek suppression was objectively unreasonable because a meritorious Miranda motion existed | Counsel may have had tactical reasons; Beheler admonitions suggested noncustodial status | Ineffective assistance: no rational tactical reason to forgo a suppression motion; counsel performed below standard |
| Whether Torres suffered prejudice from counsel’s omission (would exclusion likely change outcome) | Torres’s recorded statements were central and corroborated key points; without them reasonable probability of a different outcome existed | Prosecution argues other evidence (child’s statements, forensic interview) supported conviction | Prejudicial: reasonable probability the verdict would have been different if statements excluded; confession was an evidentiary ‘‘bombshell’’ |
| Admissibility at trial / other claimed errors | (Raised in Wende brief) Issues include voluntariness, sufficiency, admission of forensic interview, pinpoint instructions, sentencing | Trial court admitted the recording without defense objection | Court reversed on IAC/Miranda grounds and did not reach remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial‑interrogation warnings requirement)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (defendant must show meritorious suppression motion and prejudice for IAC based on failure to litigate Fourth Amendment claims)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (Beheler admonishments considered in custody analysis; totality of circumstances controls)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (custody is objective; focus on whether reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (recognizing pressures of custodial interrogation)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedural framework for appointed counsel’s silence on arguable issues on appeal)