State v. Gomez
2017 Ohio 8681
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Miguel L. Gomez, a native Kaqchikel speaker who communicated with his partner primarily in Spanish, was indicted for endangering his infant daughter after admitting in a video‑recorded police interview that he violently shook the child.
- Gomez and the child's mother went to the Hamilton Police Department voluntarily late at night; Gomez was interviewed beginning ~2:30 a.m. with an English‑to‑Spanish certified court interpreter present.
- Before questioning, detectives told Gomez he was not under arrest, was not in custody, and could leave at any time; Gomez signed a Miranda waiver card written in Spanish after the interpreter read it to him.
- During the interview Gomez spoke in English at times, twice demonstrated shaking on a doll, and confessed; the interview was recorded and played at the suppression hearing.
- Gomez moved to suppress his statements, arguing the interrogation was custodial and that any Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. The trial court denied suppression; Gomez was convicted and sentenced to 8 years. He appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the interview a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings? | State: No — Gomez came voluntarily, was told he was free to leave, so a reasonable person would not feel restrained. | Gomez: Yes — escorted to the station, separated, placed in a locked room before questioning; not free to leave. | Held: Not custodial — totality of circumstances shows Gomez was free to leave; Miranda warnings not required. |
| If custodial, was Gomez’s Miranda waiver knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | State: Yes — rights were read in Spanish by a certified interpreter, Gomez affirmed understanding and signed the waiver; he communicated in Spanish regularly. | Gomez: No — native language is Kaqchikel, not Spanish, so he may not have understood the warnings. | Held: Even assuming custody, waiver was valid — substantial evidence that Gomez understood Spanish and knowingly waived rights. |
| Whether interpreter adequacy undermined waiver | State: Interpreter was certified, read rights in Spanish, verified Gomez’s understanding; video corroborates comprehension. | Gomez: Interpreter may not have conveyed rights fully due to language differences (Kaqchikel). | Held: Interpreter testimony and video showed comprehension; no evidence of misunderstanding. |
| Whether suppression of confession was required due to coercion | State: No coercion; no threats, physical abuse, or deprivation occurred. | Gomez: Implied coercion from late‑night interrogation and separations. | Held: No police coercion shown; confession admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes requirement of Miranda warnings for custodial interrogation)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (objective test for custody: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- State v. Gumm, 73 Ohio St.3d 413 (same custody standard under Ohio law)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review standard for suppression rulings; mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St.3d 309 (factors for evaluating knowing, intelligent, voluntary Miranda waiver)
- State v. Cooey, 46 Ohio St.3d 20 (waiver involuntariness requires evidence of police coercion)
- State v. Knuckles, 65 Ohio St.3d 494 (definition of interrogation likely to elicit incriminating response)
- State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 (state bears burden to prove waiver by preponderance of evidence)