People v. Arroya

Colorado, The PEOPLE of State

Plaintiff-Appellant, ARROYA, Defendant-Appellee.

Erika

No. 99SA153. Colorado,

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

Nov. 1999. Modified Nov.

As

H25 Ritter, Jr., Attorney, A. William District Coats, Nathan Second Judicial District B. Denver, Deputy Attorney Col- Chief District Attorneys Plaintiff-Appellant. orado Vela, F. David State De- Colorado Public Anthony Viorst, Deputy fender State Public Denver, Attorneys for Colorado Defender. Defendant-Appellee. Opinion BENDER

Justice delivered the the Court.

I. INTRODUCTION interlocutory appeal In this pursuant 16-12-102(2), 4.1 and C.A.R. section 6 C.R.S. (1999), People challenge the trial court’s suppressing a custodial order defendant, Erika Arroya, con- three-year cerning the son. death of old suppressed portions The trial court certain grounds custodial statements asserted “scru- silent thereafter did not assertion, pulously thereby honor” this violat- rights ing her under the Fifth and Four- teenth Amendments. obligation hold that before suspect’s right triggered, suspect, is

silent who is custo- questioned, dy being articu- late the to remain silent. This must be done such a manner that a reasonable H27 rights under the circumstances would advised followed along understand the conduct words on the standard form. asserting to mean that under began p.m. first interview at 4:40 questioning. Although off

Miranda to cut p.m. lasted During until 5:49 this first inter- precise the trial failed to articulate view, Arroya denied that she had harmed her legal adopt opinion, we standard son, insisting that she left him alone the appropri- hold that the court considered shortly bathtub and returned thereafter ate factors to determine whether find that he drowned. voked her under silent Mi- ended, police After the first interview con- Arizona, randa v. 384 U.S. investigation tinued their and Detective Neil (1966). Here, 16 L.Ed.2d began slightly interview second more than addressed of the circum- two hours The later. detective did not re- surrounding Arroya’s stances statement and state warnings Arroya the Miranda to be- unambiguously found that she asserted her beginning fore this second interview. Arroya to remain silent. un- This Once interrogation equivocally was right, police this the recorded on both video and asserted had duty audiotape, to her the honor to and detective continued his remain Because police silent. the took no about the circumstances sur- steps ques- rounding that would allow them to resume the death of son. tioning Arroya clearly once her invoked During interview, Arroya this made sever- silent, we affirm the al incriminatory statements and detective ruling police scrupu- failed to “honor Arroya asked her if she would like a break. lously” Arroya’s assertion of her under stated, “I don’t wanna talk more.” The questioning. Miranda to cut off custodial momentarily stopped questioning detective Thus, we affirm and return this case for Arroya because, testified, at that time he as proceedings. further thought Arroya he meant she that wanted a break, stop wanted inter- II. BACKGROUND FACTS rogation altogether. Arroya remained in the On the afternoon of the Eri- break, during interview room which last- Arroya phone pay ka called 911 from a at a ed some of After number minutes. this short report 7-11 store her son had break, the detective resumed and Emergency personnel responded drowned. Arroya incriminating made further state- son, Arroya and with found the store her ments about the death of son. her At no Armando, age three. Paramedics took Ar- point during either the first or the second hospital person- mando to the where medical Arroya request attorney. interview did pronounced him nel Police dead. officers scene, Arroya first interviewed at the and III. TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS accompanied apartment then her to the AND ANALYSIS allegedly where They Armando drowned. Arroya

later took to the station for People charged Arroya with two further first-degree counts of murder under sections (1998). 18-3-102(l)(a) (f), and 6 C.R.S. Arro- station, At Detective David Neil ya suppress all moved to statements made in interrogated over the course of sever- break, the second interview after the assert- initiating al interviews. Before questioning, words, ing that her don’t wanna talk no rights detective advised more,” invoked to remain silent and request under Miranda counsel and to thereby questioning, cut off and that signed the written respect fully failed form that exercise the detective used describe required by rights these her. this as both the also U.S. Su- detective ob- preme Michigan Mosley, tained consent Court to record the inter- 423 rogation audiotape, (1975), U.S. 313 video and she L.Ed.2d signed Quezada, giving form written consent. Once this court in (1987). recording began, the video the detective re- interrogation there adopting the second opinion Indeed six-page In a written Arroya’s argument relevant Detec- portions a number of asked are it court stated appeal, given there is no answer tive Neil which videotapes transcripts reviewed are Defendant. The answers which entirety. Earlier interrogation in their given frequently difficult to hear. Be- are sup- during hearing on motion indicated that she did want fore she judge expressly he press, stated any it clear that her talk further she made videotapes of personally review involved!;] ... boyfriend [the was not appreciate order water!;] ... died because child] detective and demeanor tones holding him under died because she just viewing Arroya, opposed their water!;] ... it she did but she transcripts. words in the With (cid:127) n did!;] tell (cid:127) that no- wouldn’t what general circumstances anything than body to do with other Arroya had found that little the trial court nobody her and there is to blame but system justice with criminal no contact statement, “I don’t her.... Her wanna interrogation. The court credited before this more,” talk is understandable on maintaining “gentle” the detective preceded by these tape, and was serious throughout interrogation, noting tone admissions. “repeatedly of Arro- that he was solicitous” dialogue found that note that occurred ya’s The trial court We that the condition.1 questions said, asked just Arroya there were number of wanna talk “I don’t before the that did not answer. The more,” detective appears support trial no that answers court found finding Arroya asserted her tape questions on the were detective’s second ques-- off further to remain silent and to cut responsive far less than were her answers on asked, you tioning. The “Do want detective videotape; tape on the second her the first Arroya after serious incrimi- break?” “frequently difficult” to hear. answers were statements, natory Arroya did an- and not hearing suppress, on motion At said, directly question swer the but instead told inquired court and was no don’t wanna talk more.” detective, attorney, Arroya and district Arroya: (Unintelligible) (Long pause) Aah. present during the interview. were (sic). (crying) I think of it I’m don’t wanna general findings, the Along with these just up. ... I ... all messed I don’t know concerning specific findings court made sleep ... put I I know I him with ... interrogation. The court found facts of the things they I know are done some I’ve unintelligible although Arroya gave an- best, life. for the he had a He felt. but many at all swers or no answers abortion, not he ... He like an was was tape, her detective’s second sighing) ... (crying & more” “I don’t wanna talk no was statement ... It’s like an it was Neil: abortion tape. on the The court not- understandable given at the ed that the initial advisement Arroya: He life. is ... had tape beginning of the first included notice of but that the ad- her Neil: Yeah. given Arroya at the visement was not Arroya: in me. He lived beginning second interview. youDo Neil: wanna break? preceding Addressing the circumstances Arroya: (Crying) I don’t wanna talk no Arroya’s statement that she' did not “wanna more. more,” just talk the trial court found added.) (Emphasis Arroya’s request stop the interro- before Arroya stop she wanted to serious, Once said gation, made a number of trial court found that criminating admissions: found, its on review of the entire 1. The court detective asked court based noted kleenex, whether not she needed detective had used or that the drink, something even she want- “unscrupulous techniques.” Additionally, opportunity ed an to smoke. 104-05, stopped 321, Quezada, immediately gave detective 731 P.2d a break. The court could not determine the therefore the failed to break, length exact but found that Arroya’s right assertion of short, “relatively was measured minutes to remain silent. days.” rather than hours or break, questioning After the short re- TV. STANDARD OP REVIEW attempt, sumed. The detective made no begin analysis our brief found, trial court to re-advise our standard of review the rights clarify toor her earlier statement that ruling. appellate trial court’s An court must want she did not to talk further. The court fact, findings long defer to trial court as “certainly found that there was no subse- competent supports evidence record discussion,” quent Miranda advisement Jordan, People them. See but continued: (Colo.1995). one, In cases like this was When interview resumed there presented appellate where the issue to the attempt was no to re-advise defendant or fact, is a mixed one both law and we previous statement.... defer the factual certainly subsequent Mi- so There long randa advisement or discussion of as there is sufficient evidence Rather, rights. tape demonstrates support findings, record to but sub that after short contin- break ject legal the trial court’s conclusions to de ued. review. novo (Colo.1998) 550, 555 (deferring P.2d to trial its Based on consideration of these circum- stances, analysis court’s factual although held whether criminal voluntarily agreed speak suspect “sufficiently expressed “had his desire for voluntarily spoken with the detective for counsel”); Quezada, the assistance of time, period some of the statement T don’t P.2d at 732-33. more,’ a wanna talk clear was invocation to right though of her remain silent.” Even V. “CLEAR ARTICULATION” OF

the thought detective testified that he Arro- RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT —LE- ya’s statement meant she wanted to take a STANDARD GAL AND OF SCOPE break not that and she wanted to cut off the INQUIRY THE questioning entirely, the concluded that right “her statement is an invocation of the A. “Clear Articulation” Rule triggers steps to remain silent and the which We now turn to a address what sus must be taken order to reinitiate conversa- pect say right must to invoke the tions.” require police respect silent in order to the to concluding After that fully suspect’s right the exercise to cut right was a clear assertion of questioning off Miranda. under sel silent, police the court then assessed the words, speak precise legalistic dom and surrounding Arroya’s unequivocal conduct setting in police being ques a custodial while right questioning. of her assertion to cut off tioned, people say, hereby few in police The court found that the to failed my right voke to silent remain and decline to statement; meaning Arroya’s' the any questions.” answer further The words gave that police very a short suspect subject used a often will be break; police that and did not re-advise interpretation. Hence, more than one rights under when Miranda police perhaps and then a trial court must they questioning. continued with The suspect determine whether has invoked the court concluded that under circum- these right interroga remain and silent cut off police “scrupulously stances hon- tion, requiring police engage that the con Arroya’s request ored” cut off scrupulously duct that re honors or police The court reasoned that did noth- spects right. Following the exercise ing permit that would them to resume the right interrogation right the standard established for to counsel once the had been voked, cases, Mosley, suspect consistent with 423 U.S. at we hold that a must person his of silence to assure silent that so articulate the desire in the police circum- exercise of the will be scru- a reasonable suspect’s understand pulously stances would The honored....” critical safe- suspect words conduct mean “right guard person’s .... to cut off is Miranda asserting cut off is questioning.” Through the exercise of his police thereby requiring the questioning, option terminate can con- suspect’s exercise of this respect fully the occurs, trol the time at which right. discussed, subjects and the duration of interrogation. requirement in undergoing a custodial Before law authorities must enforcement terrogation, suspect must be advised of her person’s option exercise counteracts Miranda which include Fifth rights, attorney pres rights pressures to have an set- Amendment the coercive custodial ques in the face of ent and to remain silent ting. therefore conclude the ad- Miranda, tioning. at See 384 U.S. missibility of statements obtained after the By invoking either S.Ct. 1602. person custody has decided remain silent, right to remain a sus counsel or the under Miranda depends silent during any time before or custo pect at “right questioning” his to cut off questioning, off interrogation dial cut “scrupulously honored.” willing proceed with the if the is (Citations omitted.) requirement specifically she must waive police suspect’s honor a ex- 473-74, 479, id. rights. these right to ercise of the remain silent does not “If the continues without 1602. question- mean all must cease presence attorney and a statement suspect’s attorney present.2 until the is taken, govern heavy burden rests on Rather, & n. See id. at 104 the defendant ment demonstrate respect fully must knowingly intelligently privi waived his right, interrogators exercise of this and the lege against and his self-incrimination pressures ] must coercive “counteraet[ appointed counsel.” Id. to retained or setting” steps through the custodial such as 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602. interrogation, allowing ceasing signifi- a criminal invokes his Once resuming pass cant of time before amount “scru Miranda reissuing the pulously the assertion of this honor” id. 104-05, See warnings. 96 at 321. S.Ct. the Miranda doctrine. comply to order with context, right In the to counsel explained Mosley, in Supreme theAs Court Supreme a “clear 103-04, Court instituted articula 423 96 321: U.S. at S.Ct. trigger safeguards tion rule” to envi interpretation A and faithful reasonable the Miranda counsel. See right sioned to opinion Miranda must rest on the States, 452, 459, 114 Davis v. United 512 U.S. adopt of the Court in that case to intention (1994). 2350, “fully If a notify ... to S.Ct. 129 L.Ed.2d 362 effective means developed differently right right 2. in the to counsel and The law has area of distinction between silent); request Building Mississippi, counsel. on a remain Minnick 498 distinction 146, 165, 486, Miranda, 473-74, 111 U.S. S.Ct. 112 L.Ed.2d 489 U.S. at first articulated in 384 J., (1990) (Scalia, 1602, dissenting) (criticizing distinc- Supreme provides great- 86 S.Ct. Court right right tion between counsel safeguards right procedural er for the counsel context). silent in this right Compare than to remain silent. for the Arizona, 477, 484-85, 451 U.S. Edwards v. 101 explained Supreme with Court has not 1880, (1981) (holding S.Ct. 68 L.Ed.2d 378 precision distinguishing the reason for between invoked, right once the counsel is custodial rights. Supreme Court these two of Minne- suspect’s cease must until the attor- suggests sota that the distinction because exists ney present) Mosley, at is with 423 U.S. 104 & n. counsel, right person when a invokes the 10, (distinguishing right 96 S.Ct. 321 remain expresses po- unwillingness an to deal with the counsel, right finding attorney, silent from except through lice all an while a invoked, right police right once to remain silent is person who invokes the remain silent scrupulously must the exercise of that honor retains control over her interactions with the Stumes, 638, Williams, 277, right). police. also Solem v. 465 U.S. State v. 535 N.W.2d See See 648, 1338, (1984) (not- (Minn.1995). 104 S.Ct. 79 L.Ed.2d 579 284-85

H31 60, requests attorney, suspect clearly Donesay, 862, then State v. Kan. 265 questioning may until an (1998); further occur attor 1014, 871-72 King, State v. 708 A.2d ney suspect has been made available or the (Me.1998); Williams, 1017 535 N.W.2d at 458, id. at reinitiates the conversation. See majority jurisdictions 285.3 The of federal 2350; see also 953 P.2d at considering the applied issue have the Davis However, request if suspect’s 554. right rule to the to remain silent as well. ambiguous equivocal, police or then need not See, Ramirez, e.g., United States v. 79 F.3d make an effort to the statement and (2d 298, Cir.1996); 305 States United free are to continue (8th Johnson, 947, Cir.1995); F.3d Davis, 461-62, 512 U.S. 114 S.Ct. 2350. Singletary, Coleman v. 30 F.3d suspect clearly To determine whether a (11th Cir.1994).4 right invoked his constitutional an attor Supreme The Minnesota in Court ney, objec Supreme employed Court Williams extending outlined the rationale for police tive standard of reasonable officer right Davis to to silence cases when it ex- under circumstances. See id. at plained procedures prophylactic that fewer suspect makes reference “[I]f S.Ct. required right are in the to remain silent equivocal an attorney ambiguous that is or context. light in that a reasonable officer attempts When an accused to invoke his circumstances would have understood counsel, right to he indicates he feels might invoking the suspect right be dealing comfortable with the counsel, authorities precedents require our do not only with the assistance of questioning.” (emphasis counsel. That cessation of Id. original). pro The reasonableness standard is not the case silent well-defined, context, law therefore, vides enforcement with a procedural fewer 461, 114 common rule. sense See id. at safeguards appropriate are when the ac- noted, Supreme 2350. As the Court cused invokes the to remain silent. not be officers should “forced to make diffi Supreme Because the Court has held that judgment cult calls about sus require police the Constitution does not lawyer pect though fact wants even officers to confíne their to clar- so, has not suppres said threat ifying questions ambigu- when an accused they guess if wrong.” sion Id. ously equivocally attempts or to invoke his adopt counsel, rule in the reasonableness greater it follows even context of invocation logic require that the Constitution does not silent —before the must clarifying approach such a when an ac- suspect’s honor a ambiguously equivocally attempts cused articulate that so to invoke his to remain silent. in the circum- reasonable (citations omitted). 535 N.W.2d at 284-85 stances would understand the requires A “clear articulation rule” a sus- words and conduct to mean that the pect protect to act to herself to some extent right wants exercise his to cut off further suspect clearly express because the must a questioning. doing so In we follow the ma- however, rights; desire to invoke her as the jority of other states that have considered Davis, Supreme Court stated: application of the “clear articulation rule” See, e.g., [Requiring right remain a clear silent. assertion State Owen, 715, (Fla.1997); might disadvantage v. 696 717-18 suspects So.2d counsel some State, 483, drade, 71, (D.Mass.1996); F.Supp. 3. See v. also Bowen 322 Ark. 911 925 79-80 555, (1995); C., Sanchez, 1542, S.W.2d F.Supp. 565 re Frederick 8 United v. States 866 343, 294, (1999); Neb.App. (D.Kan.1994). 594 N.W.2d 302 1558-59 161, (N.D. Greybull, State v. 579 N.W.2d 163 We note that Fifth and Ninth Circuits have 1998); Reed, 35, State v. 332 503 S.E.2d S.C. declined to reach the issue of whether Davis 747, State, (1998); 750 931 Dowthitt v. S.W.2d applies to the See Barnes silent. 244, (Tex.Crim.App.1996). 257 Johnson, 218, (5th 1998); F.3d Cir. 160 225 Hicks, Demosthenes, 1174, (9th F.Supp. 4. See also States v. 967 Evans v. 98 F.3d 1176 United 242, (E.D.Mich.1997); Cir.1996). 250 United States v. An 1132 fear, intimidation, plain meaning of those of the defendant and the lack of

who—because skills, variety words, rea- a of other consider linguistic or but court should also their totality surrounding articulate sons—will not of circumstances they actually a although want to counsel in order to assess the words statement primary protec- lawyer present. But context. subject suspects to custodial afforded tion previously have directed trial courts warnings interrogation the Miranda is totality of the circumstances examine themselves. in the cir how á reasonable officer assess 460, 114 courts U.S. at S.Ct. Other 512 perceive a cumstances would statement requiring sufficient agreed, finding that have of might request be a for assistance unduly burden clarity suspects from is (find Romero, 953 at 555 counsel. See P.2d Andrade, rights. See 925 on their some un ing a have reasonable F.Supp. at 80. statement, talk to a derstood the should suspect articu Although a must lawyer go ... I do want to because cut off late her desire to request counsel on this” be a clear for police offi clarity a reasonable sufficient circumstances). surrounding “The given the in the would understand cer circumstances objective in the legal standard is —whether an assertion of the the statement to be answer, question suspect’s context require the questioning, we do not to cut off reasonably could responses be construed special phrases. suspect to use ritualistic suspect officer to mean that States, 155, Quinn v. 349 U.S. See United lawyer.” totality Id. at 556. This wanted (1955) 162, 668, (stating 964 99 L.Ed. analysis applies equally the circumstances special of words is need that no combination right to to the remain silent.5 against ed to invoke the self-incrimina review a The trial court must tion). silent, right to To invoke range case-by-case basis wide factors on “speak need with the discrimina Davis, the cir in order consider of an Oxford don.” 512 U.S. tion Romero, 2350; 459, 114 see also 953 cumstances. The trial court assess S.Ct. should Further, suspects at 556. because spoken by P.2d the words the defendant and the verbalizing their have limited skills officer, interrogating response to the officer’s setting, a court must wishes in custodial words, suspect’s speech patterns broad, narrow, give than a inter “a rather suspect, the content of requests to cut off pretation” interrogating the demeanor and tone of the Romero, (directing P.2d at 554-55 953 See officer, during ques behavior interpret requests for counsel courts to tioning, point in at which the Kleber, broadly; People quoting who voked the (Colo.1993) 1361, Michigan 1363 v. Jack present during interrogation. 633, 1404, son, 89 475 U.S. 555-56; People v. Tru P.2d (1986)). L.Ed.2d 631 (Colo.1997) (employ jillo, 938 P.2d whether cus similar factors determine Totality Inquiry B. the Circumstances A place). todial taken Having adopted the articula clear might court also consider the rule, how a tion we turn to a discussion as well as the officer’s drew statement trial court determine whether sus Johnson, response to the statement. See pect’s a clear assertion F.3d at 955. scope of a trial silent. subsequent an Whether officer’s analysis be to the court’s should not limited clarify attempt to a sus they A trial were an appear as on their face. words totality part spoken pect’s may wishes also be of the court should consider words Kolb, (7th Cir.1992) join juris concluding, 5. In so we numerous other Bobo 969 F.2d See, Johnson, (“We (stating e.g., that entire 56 F.3d at 955 courts should “examine the dictions. spoke” (quoting claimant statements as a whole to context in which the consider defendant’s Meachum, (2d Bradley they unequivocal Cir. indicate an 918 F.2d determine whether silent.”); 1990))). right to decision to invoke analysis. Supreme ya’s circumstances statement as a of clear articulation her required not Court has officers intent to right. exercise this ambiguous rights, suspect’s invocation of al Here, court determined though the has Court indicated saying, more,” Arroya “I don’t wanna no talk police practice do so. prudent often See silent, invoked the Davis, 461, 114 512 U.S. at and given the circumstances surround- addition, assessing when ing meant she what she said. totality of the circumstances a trial court support To finding, the trial court de- may suspects take into account fact that tailed the surrounding circumstances Arro- not, particular may due to their characteris ya’s statement, considering all but one tics and the inter circumstances suggest factors we as relevant for determin- view, request questioning end has unequivocally whether defendant sophisticated legally proper most form. invoked her remain silent. The trial (applying at 554 See 953 P.2d court took into account: counsel). principle requests same (1) spoken by Arroya the words —after may Courts even take into account sus admissions, making stated, serious “I justice pect’s experience the criminal with more”; don’t talk wanna no system, questions, ability to understand (2) spoken by ability verbalize the words the detective —he and her her wants and examples asked if (noting needs. id. at 554-55 she wanted a break ceased Cf. personal may perti questioning once Arroya characteristics that be stated that did inquiry more”; clarity nent “talk into invo want to counsel). cation (3) response the detective’s immediately we list are not ex statement —he question- factors here ceased specif ing; A haustive. trial court need not make ic each these (4) the content —the factors, single controlling. and no factor is A court found detective had not used may many consider or all these “unscrupulous” during interroga- tactics factors, and a court other consider rele tion, and the court did find that mentioned,

vant factors that have not we as any topics addressed or crimes long that it demonstrates has death; other than the child’s totality considered the of the circumstances. (5) the detective’s demeanor and tone— Quezada, (finding during “gentle” Mosley factors inquiry are not exhaustive of “solicitous”; police scrupulously into whether honor a sus pect’s right (6) Arroya’s during questioning— behavior inquiry of circumstances must made on be second, responsive during she was less basis). case-by-case interview, frequently inau- answers were tape, incriminatory dible on the she made APPLICATION OF VI. “CLEAR admissions, and her “I wan- don’t ARTICULATION” RULE enough na talk no more” is loud to be heard Relying legal just principles the two tape; on the discussed, we now examine the (7) point at which invoked her First, decision this ease. we must deter- becoming to remain silent —after less mine the trial court considered just responsive making after a series of totality of the circumstances when it ruled statements, incriminating Arroya states that statement, wanna don’t talk any she does not want to talk more when more,” meant wanted exercise break; if detective she wants asks Second, silent. (8) properly present interrogation— examine whether who was detective, attorney, that under ruled these circumstances rea- district present; sonable officer would have Arro- were understood (9) the legal sophistication'— terpreted statement to mean that Arroya’s of level Although or earlier contact with had little no she wanted the cease. justice system; and criminal interpretation that his the detective testified Arroya’s was that of statement she wanted (10) attempted to the detective break, repeated find- take a the trial court’s at- clarify Arroya’s made no statement —he a ings that the words were clear invocation ques- statement when tempt to her are right apparently silent tioning resumed after short break. remain subjective rejections of inter- the detective’s list trial The factor we that the Rather, Arroya’s pretation of words. pat “speech did not consider was finding clearly her invoked court’s that See, suspect.” e.g., of the terns permits right remain to infer silent us analy (approving trial court’s P.2d would have meant to a rea- what words noting speech,” “pattern of sis of defendant’s police they were officer at the time sonable slang, im expletives use defendant’s at that time spoken i.e., that wished sentences, general proper — construction right her consis- to exercise silent skills). However, grammatical be lack of given tent with Miranda advisements specific a trial court need not make cause by her earlier this officer. findings respect to each individual factor circumstances, this assessment of the its THE OF VII. WHETHER EXERCISE analysis does not render the court’s omission THE RIGHT SCRUPULOUSLY inadequate. WAS HONORED Although could reasonable minds Having ruling trial affirmed the court’s Arroya’s statement was differ about whether Arroya clearly right cut invoked her clear invocation of People’s we turn to con- findings off adequate trial court’s are ly by by ruling At erred supported evidence the record. tention the court hearing, police stated honor Arro- failed to interroga videotapes view the would right. argue ya’s exercise of this The tion, merely spoken consider words “mechanically applied that the court the four ” by Arroya transcript, the court Mosley factors of and failed to consider all of familiar with the circum totality surrounding circumstances Arroya’s surrounding stances statement. However, resumption be- several that Ar- The trial court stated times cause the trial court considered the roya’s a clear invocation of statement was following Arroya’s circumstances right to remain silent and relied on a police found took summary of the facts and circum detailed respect fully unambiguous steps to surrounding the statement for its stances request, we affirm the trial decision. court’s ruling. must defer to a Because we suspect ambiguously If findings supported fact when court’s equivocally ques record, invokes her to cut off in the we do not sufficient evidence duty findings tioning, police then have to clari disturb the here. any steps fy her statement or to take though Even the trial court did not respect fully remain expressly state that under these circum Davis, 512 U.S. at silent. stances a reasonable adopt requiring (declining rule statement as have understood clarify ambiguous requests officers articulation of her to remain si clear counsel). situation, may such lent, are able make this from inference questioning suspect being without continue the detailed this case. hand, required to do more. On the other places trial court’s order states three invoked, once the to remain silent is Arroya “clearly invoked scrupulously honored and must be silent.” court noted the detective only if resume immediately stopped questioning her after police act talking, under the circumstances stop wanted to she stated demonstrating of this that the detective himself assertion

H35 right. Mosley, U.S. at In the trial court’s review of the relevant 321; Quezada, at 732. In other facts of police this did words, right once the silent is nothing Arroya’s clearly as- articulated, clearly some additional then cir- right serted questioning to cut off other than police cumstances must occur before resume give interroga- her a short break from the by way questioning' examples, of illustration questioning request resumed as if her — tion — only, may suspect include: if the volunteers stop interrogation ambiguous. was answering signifi- if questions; to continue Thus, when the trial court ruled that passes; police amount of if the cant time police appropriate steps failed to take before clarify suspect’s assertion of the earlier re-initiating questioning guidelines under the if right; suspect or re-advise the Quezada, set forth the court’s assessment Miranda; rights appro- under some carefully was not “mechanistic” because it priate combination of these circumstances. totality took into account the of the circum- significant noIf factual event occurs to dem- interrogation. stances of the suspect onstrate that chose to resume disagree People’s We position with the answering questions clearly asserting after the trial court failed consider all of the right then the Miranda following Arroya’s circumstances questioning “scrupu- to cut off was she did not want “talk no more.” The lously honored.” variety trial court reviewed of facts that Quezada, adopted Mosley In hold dispute. are not in finding court’s ing requiring court that a trial review the no additional circumstances occurred that totality of the circumstances to determine demonstrated intent to revoke her police scrupulously whether the honored earlier exercise of the to remain silent suspect’s Quezada, to remain silent. appears crucial to its conclusion. Because Quezada P.2d at 732-33. said stopped, questioning nothing after occurred court must consider given other than Arroya, the short break surrounding the circumstances conduct of the court’s conclusion that police, highlighted and we four factors of steps failed to take questioning to re-initiate (1) particular significance: ini logical and not as a erroneous matter acknowledgement tial advisement and of his Hence, law. we affirm the trial rul- (2) rights; immediately whether the officer ing. questioning ceased once to silence attempt immediately invoked and was did not VIII. CONCLUSION (3) questioning; to resume whether the sub sequent was same offi summarize, presented To the evidence con- cer, location, in the same and about the same cerning spoken Arroya the words and the (4) interrogation; crime as the first surrounding sup- circumstances her words whether the was re-advised of his ports the trial court’s factual determination rights subsequent the outset inter Arroya unambiguously invoked her . rogation See id. to remain silent as well as the inference that reasonable officer have viewed her case, considered words as such an The trial invocation. (1) following facts: after stated she based its all but one of the fac- more,” not want did to “talk no the detective appropriate suggest tors we to assess (2) immediately stopped questioning; Ar- whether a has asserted her (3) roya given very break; was short questioning off silent and cut under rights was re-advised of when the Thus, Miranda. court considered (4) resumed; the same detective “totality of the circumstances” in deter- resumed for the same mining exercising sought crime about which she had to cut off (5) Because the trial questioning; silent. the detective made no adequate predicate factual deter- effort or to state discuss minations, ruling any ment she did not want to talk more. we affirm trial court’s dispute steps do not these facts. to take failed to honor 1136 ously rights, invokes her constitutional

scrupulously exercise Hence, Davis, questioning. we affirm the cut off must cease. See 512 decision, and remand the case 458, trial court’s 114 2350. But if U.S. at S.Ct. a sus proceedings consistent with this for further ambiguous, police pect’s are not invocation opinion. required questioning. terminate id. at See 462, ambiguous 114 2350. An commu S.Ct. KOURLIS, part in concurring Justice giving opposing nication is one rise to infer dissenting part: in Romero, 550, People ences. v. 953 P.2d See majority’s I concur with the statement (Colo.1998). Only unambiguous 554 an proper the “clear articulation rule” as unequivocal invocation of objective assessing test for whether protections. triggers silent Miranda’s See to remain silent. How- has invoked Williams, 277, State v. 535 N.W.2d 285 ever, application I dissent as to the (Minn.1995) . facts. the trial court test these Because question first of whether On the to determine did not utilize the correct test unambiguously invoked her constitutional Arroya invoked her whether today rights, adopt the standard that we calls silent, I for would remand the case further upon trial court determine whether findings newly with this defined consistent police officer would have viewed reasonable standard. an statement as invocation Davis, to cease I. 459, 512 at 114 S.Ct. 2350. Because U.S. admissibility confession prophylactic implemented rule Miranda is a poses separate two factual and distinct conduct, regulate police reviewing courts First, inquiries. legal must the court deter- interrogat- step should into shoes of the mine whether invoked working particular officer with that sus- silent, by applying the “clear articula- pect. majority explains, As this is tion rule” outlined in v. United Davis States, 452, 459, 2350, objective in context U.S. standard: “whether (1994). Second, question answer, L.Ed.2d 362 the court must re- police scrupulously whether the hon- assess sponses reasonably could be construed by applying ored invocation factors suspect” officer mean 96, Michigan Mosley, outlined in v. 423 U.S. wishes to remain silent. 953 P.2d (1975) 104, 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 at 556. Quezada, v. 733-34 Further, in order the trial court (Colo.1987). Although inquiries require both determine what a reasonable would totality the court of the circum- to assess situation, particular have understood stances, a sepa- court must each test address totality courts consider the of the cir- must rately in admissibility order to determine the enough id. It is cumstances. See at 555. short, aof custodial statement. In the sus- suspect standing look at the words of the pect articulate a desire cease alone. investigating before officers any duty Discerning have honor that whether a defendant made request. clear statement under the of the cir- requires cumstances consideration of view, my In the trial court in this case questions preceded the statement as Indeed, questions. intermixed the two response to well as the officer’s the state- majority makes use of several Johnson, ment. United States question on the second weighed the fact that the I statements analyze question. order to first treatment, urge separate response questions issue not made in their and distinct were crime, level response and before court. but in about the about defendant wished to waive A. (8th Cir.1995). rights. his 56 F.3d Greybull State found Under the “clear articulation rule” outlined majority, any- suspect unambigu saying when a “comments about not defendant’s

H37 unclear, thing especially equally were since court concludes that is an respond she continued to to the officers’ invocation to remain silent and 161, 163 (N.D.1998); questions.” 579 N.W.2d steps triggers the which must be taken to Kolb, (7th 391, 397 see also Bobo v. 969 F.2d re-initiate conversations defendant Cir.1992) (considering that both before and Mosley Que are which outlined alleged rights, after the invocation of the [sic]. zada questions).1 freely defendant answered analysis trial only This is the court’s of Arro- ya’s invocation of her to remain silent. B. ruling The remainder of court’s the trial Only trial court after a has determined police scrupulously focuses on whether the suspect that a invoked her to Arroya’s Although honored invocation. silent, the court turn to the next should trial times in passing court mentions three question: police scrupulously whether unambiguous, invocation it did Mosley, honored the invocation. See 423 explain how it that determina- reached 104, U.S. 96 S.Ct. tion. In the of the circumstances analysis adopted by majority today, I II. agree cannot that the statement was an un- in applied The trial court this case ambiguous questioning. demand to cease wrong concluding Arroya standard. specific rights, findings invoked The ten trial court her constitutional cited only specific spo- court majority considered words by the were in the made context of defendant, ken which the other For example, issues. the trial court interpreted demand question- as a to cease Arroya experience noted the fact that had no ing. Although court considered the justice system with the criminal as relevant context of in statements determin- the issue whether the detective needed employed unscrupu- whether the officer warnings Arroya. reissue Miranda lous tactics and whether findings The trial made as to the words scrupulously honored her invocation detective, spoken by response Ar- his silent, did not look to the statement, roya’s tone, his demeanor and totality of deter- the circumstances first point content mining Arroya clearly whether invoked interrogation at which the defendant invoked right. The trial court also did not consider and be- what a reasonable officer in those circum- during conjunction havior stances would have understood defen- police interroga- evaluation of dant’s statement mean. Additionally, tion the court tactics. made transcripts The trial court reviewed the findings about whether the detective at- videotapes interrogations and then tempted clarify Arroya’s statement in re- that, specifically ruled sponse the claim failed to very part [t]he first advisement rights. honor her The trial given by Neil Detective stated that Defen findings not direct did these deter- dant had a remain silent. While mining statement was a clear voluntarily agreed speak she had Arroya’s rights. invocation of voluntarily spoken with the detective placed in they When the context which time, period some the statement words, more,” spoken, don’t no were “I don’t wanna talk wanna talk is a invo clear more,” appear possible cation It ambiguous. remain silent. no context, 98, Supreme rights. 1. In the counsel invocation See id. at 105 S.Ct. 490. suspect clearly holding Court has held mat when a courts have Lower limited this to in- protections, any vokes his Fifth where Amendment re- stances invoked his sponses subsequent questions rights. ambiguous to that invoca- If the re- makes clarity quest, tion apply cannot be used to cast doubt on Smith does and courts then Illinois, request. subsequent of the initial See Smith v. 469 made consider statements sus- 91, 97, 490, See, Thomas, pect. e.g., U.S. 488 State v. 698 S.W.2d L.Ed.2d (1984). Rather, State, subsequent (Mo.Ct.App.1985), statements are rele- 947-48 Jamail (Tex.Crim.App.1990). vant as to whether the defendant waived his S.W.2d contact, chair, eye understood refused make cried that the words could have been continued, intermittently. way to take a As the interview one more than desire —as however, increasingly a desire to became re- break or as from she sponsive The trial court answered most Detective terminate point. though even she refused to on that Neil’s break, eye contact. After the she con- make interview, Detective Earlier in second demeanor, to talk with much calmer tinued Arroya if to take Neil she wished asked describing son. At how killed her break, the Detec- declined. When point in the interviews did indicate break?”, asked, you again tive “Do wanna wanted to off that she cut said, “I talk no don’t wanna then attorney. request an Immediately Arroya made this after more.” statement, Neil to ask Detective continued primary issue in is a this case mixed taking about break: Although law and this question of fact. you wanna trial

Neil: Do break? affords considerable deference to fact, findings of it novo review over (Crying) I talk no has de Arroya: wanna don’t legal trial proper and a more. standard Romero, 953 P.2d legal conclusions. See you take a break. Do want Neil: We’ll appellate Because courts Colorado glass you or do o’water smoke? law, yet point clarified trial not Arroya: Yes. employ proper standard in court did not cigarette? I don’t know Neil: Do wanna analysis. Although the trial court its consid- try smokes here but I’ll to find one. who regard- ered the the circumstances (Heavy Arroya: sighing) aspects interrogation, ing other something Neil: Want to drink? whether used unscru- such as Detective Neil No, really. Arroya: tactics, pulous okay? Neil: Restroom? You’re opinion provides no that the court evidence (No Arroya: response) verbal considered the context of the statement ’kay. Neil: We’ll break. assessing Arroya invoked her interview, Following the short break in the also to remain silent. The trial court Arroya if Detective Neil asked she felt bet- findings as to a reasonable officer in how ter, interrogation. continued and then those circumstances would have understood object. Arroya’s overall de- did not Arroya’s statement. composed calmer and more fol- meanor was record, reviewing including After question lowing the break. Given the which videotapes interrogations, I find Arro- drew statement and the line of ya’s ambiguous. Since break, that followed the findings concerning the cir- court made been reasonable for Detective Neil to have or facts that led it to cumstances conclude understand that wished a break the statement invocation was a clear to, from, interrogation. an end His Arroya’s right I would re- questions immediately following her state- proper application the case for mand attempt ment also could have been an facts standard to the of the case. Because it fact, did, desire a whether she Arroya sufficiently is unclear whether break. silent such that voked am- Other circumstances contribute to the any obligation Neil had Detective honor biguity. to the Prior I request, reach the such would not next signed indicating a form waived her analysis step in the of whether the rights, appeared and she have understood Arroya’s invocation. honored voluntarily agreed speak with that she police. videotape of the second inter- Justice MULLARKEY and Justice Chief beginning view demonstrates at the join in this and dissent. RICE concurrence session, Arroya unresponsive, refus- many ques- Neil’s to answer Detective tions, give were and the answers she did unintelligible. slumped She

often

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Arroya

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Nov 30, 1999

Citation: 988 P.2d 1124

Docket Number: 99SA153

Court Abbreviation: Colo.