United States v. Ricardo Betancourt Favela
698 F. App'x 128
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Ricardo Betancourt Favela was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of abusive sexual contact involving a child under 12 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2244, 2246.
- Favela moved to suppress incriminating statements he made during an FBI interview, arguing he was in custody and thus entitled to Miranda warnings prior to interrogation.
- The district court denied the suppression motion; on appeal the Fourth Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
- Favela also challenged admission of a recorded forensic interview of the victim, arguing he did not open the door to prior consistent statements and that admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 807 (residual exception) was improper.
- The district court admitted the forensic interview as a prior consistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B); the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding the Rule 801 requirements satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Favela was in custody during the FBI interview such that Miranda warnings were required | Favela: the interview was functionally custodial; agents failed to give Miranda warnings, so statements should be suppressed | Government: totality of circumstances show Favela was not deprived of freedom to a degree associated with formal arrest; no Miranda required | Court: Not in custody; district court did not err in denying suppression |
| Whether the victim's recorded forensic interview was admissible | Favela: he did not charge recent fabrication or improper influence, so prior consistent statement rule doesn't apply; record not admissible under Rule 807 | Government: prior consistent statement admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut implied charge of fabrication; interview preceded alleged motive to fabricate | Court: Requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) met; admission proper (no need to reach Rule 807) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- United States v. Hashime, 734 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2013) (framework for determining custody under Miranda)
- United States v. Clarke, 842 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Hedgepeth, 418 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2005) (prior consistent statement admissible to rebut charge of recent fabrication)
- Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995) (consistent statements admissible only if made before alleged motive to fabricate arose)
- United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)