People v. Travis, 2016 COA 88

In the early morning, April Travis assaulted her disabled housemate (slapped, hit with mop handle, tore hair, and stabbed her arm); officers and medical personnel responded and the victim received treatment at the scene.
While the victim was being treated in the living room, an officer asked Travis to step into the adjoining kitchen and questioned her for about ten minutes; she admitted the attack. A second officer then arrested her and transported her to the station, where she received Miranda warnings and again admitted the assault.
Travis was charged with second-degree assault causing serious bodily injury, felony menacing, and assault with a deadly weapon; she moved to suppress her statements from the home and the station and the trial court denied the motion.
On the morning of trial Travis requested a continuance to seek private counsel; the court denied the request and the trial proceeded; a jury convicted Travis and the court sentenced her to ten years imprisonment plus three years mandatory parole.
On appeal Travis challenged (1) denial of suppression, (2) denial of the continuance to obtain new counsel, and (3) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing; the Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings except it remanded on the continuance issue for additional findings under People v. Brown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Travis)	Held
Custody/Miranda for in-home interview	No Miranda required because interview was noncustodial under totality of circumstances	In-home questioning was custodial; warnings required	Held: Not custodial; Miranda not required for in-home statements
Voluntariness of statements (home & station)	Statements were voluntary; no coercive police conduct induced them	Statements involuntary due to police conduct, isolation, stress	Held: Statements voluntary; no coercive conduct shown
Continuance to obtain private counsel	Denial was within trial court discretion given case age and timing	Denial violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice; Brown factors not applied	Held: Remand required for trial court to make Brown-factor findings before appellate review
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Prosecutor's remarks responding to defense themes were permissible	Prosecutor improperly disparaged defense and suggested jury should treat defense instructions differently	Held: No misconduct; prosecutor's comments were fair response to defense theory

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishing custodial-interrogation warning requirement)
California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (no Miranda requirement for voluntary, noncustodial admissions)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (involuntary confessions barred by due process)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (wrongful denial of chosen counsel can be structural error)
People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Miranda custody analysis; factors for custody determination)
People v. Pascual, 111 P.3d 471 (reasonable-person custody standard)
People v. Breidenbach, 875 P.2d 879 (physical restraint as custody factor)
People v. Cowart, 244 P.3d 1199 (consensual in-home interview less coercive)
People v. Hankins, 201 P.3d 1215 (reasonable belief of arrest is one of many factors; voluntary confession despite expectation of arrest)
Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868 (totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness)