People v. Minjarez

Colorado, the State of The PEOPLE

Plaintiff-Appellant, MINJAREZ, Mario

John

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03SA219. Colorado,

Supreme Court

En Banc.

Dec.

(GF. Attorney Sandstrom, District Tameler, District, Karl S. Tenth Judicial Case, R. Attorney, Robert District Deputy Pueblo, Colorado, Attorney, Deputy District Plaintiff-Appellant. Attorneys for Public State Kaplan, Colorado David S. Flesher, Defender, Deputy State B. Thomas Defender, Regional De- Public Pueblo Public Pueblo, Colorado, Attorneys De- fender, fendant-Appellee. Opinion of BENDER delivered

Justice the Court.

Introduction interlocutory appeal, pursuant filed In this challenges the 4.1, prosecution to C.A.R. suppressing statements court's order police officers dur by to made Hospital in interview at Children's ing an Denver, subsequently made and statements in the officers' to his wife by the defendant all of the court held that The trial presence. were elicited statements of Miranda v. Ari in violation zona, 16 L.Ed.2d (1966). in part and reverse affirm We the defendant was hold that part. We when he was purposes for Miranda thus police officers and questioned suppress order of the trial affirm the also hold ing those statements. We interrogation subject was not his wife in the spoke he over, and after the interview presence trial court's order with reverse the thus we respect to those statements. Froceedings Below Facts and defendant, On November a 911 call dur- Minjarez, placed Mario John daugh- his infant reported that ing which he ter, breathing. Minjarez, was not Juanita arrived at emergency personnel Police and severely in- the infant home and found hospital a local taken to jured. She was Hos- to Children's subsequently transferred ques- The defendant pital Denver. home members times at his several tioned including Department, Pueblo Police Archuleta, room, Patsy who is the lead shown Detective the nurse closed the time, At that detective this case.1 door, which remained throughout closed injured claimed the infant was during interview. At no time the interview one-year-old daughter accidentally when his anyone else admitted to the room. knocked over the seat which the infant OfficerPurvis and Detective Archuleta tes- sitting, causing infant to fall six tified that the defendant cried on and off inches hit her head. questioned while he was initially following day, The Detective Archuleta re- emotionally could see he was distraught. Sirotnik, ceived information from Dr. began question treating physician Hospital, at Children's immediately after he was admitted to the injuries that the infant's were not consistent room. Officer Purvis testified that he told Rather, injury. with accidental the extent time, go defendant he was free severity injuries suggested and of her and Detective Archuleta testified that she subject infant had been shaken or to some told the defendant he say didn't have to other non-accidental trauma. Based on this anything. during At no time the interview information, and other Detective Archuleta was the defendant advised of his Miranda a obtained warrant for the defendant's ar- rights or informed of the existence of the day, rest. Later that Dr. Sirotnik called warrant. Archuleta to inform her that Detective began Officer Purvis hospital. at the tone, conversational but when the defendant Detective Archuleta told Dr. Sirotnik that responded story with the same he had told coming she was to Denver to arrest before, day Detective Archuleta the Officer Ray defendant. She then drove with Officer grew Purvis' tone accusing more and con- mond Purvis Pueblo to Denver to exe frontational. Officer Purvis told the defen- drive, cute the warrant.2 a After two-hour dant that the "medical evidence" contradicted Hospital arrived at ap Children's story, his and that it would be better for the proximately p.m. 6:00 Detective Archuleta to talk to Officer Purvis now and had the warrant for the defendant's arrest happened. be honest about what pocket. her The officers asked nurses ICU, neonatal where the infant being point From that interrogation, Offi- treated, provide to them a room where cer Purvis testified that questioning pro- speak privately, could to the defendant and ceeded with Officer providing Purvis details bring asked the nurses to the defendant to happened of what and agree- the defendant them. Detective Archuleta testified that she ing. example, report For in his Officer Pur- requested private creating room to avoid wrote: "I vis told [the defendant] he lost disturbance when the defendant was taken temper and that he shook Juanita. I told custody. into defendant], happened, right, [the 'this what you her-you your temper, shook lost and The nurses showed Detective Archuleta " you interview, shook Juanita.' Later in and meeting Officer Purvis into a room reported, short Officer Purvis "I told [the distance from the area where the infant defen- her, 'You being you?" dant] treated. shook didn't And long [the The room had a said, defendant], conference table and 'Yes." I told defendant] [the several chairs. After her, violently the defendant was taken to 'You shook [the the interview and defendant] " nurse, said, room he sat down at offi- 'Yes' At point, one Officer Purvis request. defendant, cers' incorrectly, The defendant was seated in a informed the door, away fracture, chair from the and Detective infant had a skull and when Officer suggested Archuleta and Officer Purvis sat between might hap- Purvis how this have him and the door. Once the defendant pened, agreed the defendant with Officer 1. These statements were ruled admissible Purvis testified that he was a detective at the motion, investigation Minjarez' time of the trial court in another and into Juanita are not the injuries. patrol He is now on and was referred subject appeal. of this to as an officer at the time he testified. Purvig' tectives; "directed the defendant was Archule- Detective of events. version two twenty minutes of and had from the door that about chair farthest ta testified door"; comprised interview were him and the minute between forty-five officers in the de- their belief exchange. communicated type of confrontational found the culpability. The court fendant's admission Based on of the interview to be "accusato- overall tone infant, Archuleta and Detective he shook "confrontational," especially when ry" and him, again formally arrested Purvis Officer evi- Purvis referred to the "medical Officer rights, advising him of his without story. refuted the defendant's dence" permitted wife was then the Purvis was "em- The court found Officer saw her hus Before she the room. to enter the, and raised his towards pathetic [infant] the de band, informed her nurses had nature of the emphasize the violent to voice infant. shaking the confessed fendant leading ques- used act" and that had presence, the officers' defendant's] emo- "played on [the tions and during which his wife conversation brief in- conducting a confrontational by ... tions responsibility said, take full going "I'm he terview." and Officer Archuleta this." Detective transported Purvis then the exis- court also addressed The trial Pueblo, trip, during the findings. The in its the warrant tence of that he was "a comments made unsolicited the officers went reiterated monster." arresting the de- purpose of for the Denver testimo- stated that the officers' fendant and defendant was held that the trial court The allow the defendant ny would purposes during his custody for Miranda a matter of law." "incredible as Archuleta and Offi- leave was Detective interview pros- prohibited the therefore Purvis and cer concluded, Overall, reviewing "In the court using made the statements ecution looking at the matter and the facts of this as its that interview evidence the course cireumstances, finds the Court totality of the the The court also held case-in-chief. 'in in this matter was Defendant the subsequent conversation with his interrogated by he was custody' at the time of interro- equivalent functional wife was hospital. at the two officers" sup- statements ordered those gation and the defen- respect to the statements With pressed as well. wife, the court noted brief- to his dant made made while the the statements Regarding into finds that to allow ly: "The Court in the hos being interviewed just been told spouse, who has room a Matheny, People cited v. the trial court pital, seriously injur- has confessed her husband (Colo.2002), and articulated 46 P.3d 453 equivalent functional ing their child is the to deter forth in that case we set standard those orders that questioning and the Court custody" "in a defendant mine whether suppressed." statements be made The court then purposes. Miranda First, court fact. the trial findings of several Analysis dishonest with the officers were found the 1966, Supreme Court States him In United Purvis told "when Detective this Miranda v. Arizona. Under court found decided to leave." The was free that he may not use in its case-in- ruling, the state hours to execute drove two that the officers suspect in the by a any statement made warrant, testimony that chief and that "[their] interrogation unless of custodial pres course was free to leave their the Defendant warn preceded certain interrogation room" he came into the interview ence once Arizona, 436, 384 U.S. v. ings. Miranda court then made incredible. The (1966). 1602, 444, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 86 S.Ct. character findings regarding the following particularly con The Mirando Court forty-five minute interview: of the and tone privilege to the the threat cerned about with the two de- isolated the defendant was Thus, Miranda. in violation of not elicited were 3. trial court ruled that these statements admissible. statements are ruled that these voluntarily spontaneously were court made

353 against posed by self-incrimination coercive circumstances under which the questioning interrogation techniques applied to individu occurred. Matheny, See 459-60; 46 P.3d at als who are deprived isolated and of contact Horn, People (Colo.1990). v. 790 P.2d 816 family. 461, with friends and Id. 86 S.Ct. A court factors, many consider but no environment, 1602. according Such an single determinative, factor is and a court Court, purpose "is created for no other than is not limited in the number of factors it subjugate the individual to the will of his may Rather, consider. important the most 457, examiner." Id. at 86 S.Ct. 1602. consideration is whether the trial court ac curately evaluated "totality of the cir applies

Miranda only "where there cumstances" making has been such a restriction on a person's its "in custody" " determination. See 46 freedom as to P.3d at custody.! render him 'in ("[A] Matheny, 46 (quoting Oregon P.3d at 463 464 v. must examine all of the cir Mathiason, 492, 495, 711, 429 surrounding U.S. cumstances S.Ct. the interrogation.") (1977)). L.Ed.2d Under this Court's (quoting Stansbury California, v. law, 1526, prior 114 S.Ct. case whether a is in custo 128 L.Ed.2d 293 dy for purposes question is a of law (1994)); Thiret, see also that we review de novo. Id. at (Colo.1984) (reversing the trial in custody court's determination because Matheny analysis the court's explained we single that an "in cus focused on a fac tor rather than tody" determination of the involves two discrete in circum stances). quiries. requires guide The first To inquiry, a trial court we have establish suggested the cireumstances surrounding the a number of factors a court may interrogation, whether, and the second consider, asks time, including pur cireumstances, under those there was a "for pose encounter; persons present mal arrest or restraint on freedom of move during questioning; words used degree ment of the associated with a formal officers; the tome of voice of the offi arrest." Id. at (quoting Thompson 459 v. general cers and the interroga mood of the Keohane, 457, 516 U.S. 116 S.Ct. 133 tion; whether the defendant is restrained in (1995))(further L.Ed.2d 383 citations omit any way; and whether the giv defendant is ted). en instructions. See at (quoting People 465-66 Trujillo, v. 938 inquiry distinctly The first is factu 117, (Colo.1997)). P.2d 124 al, and thus we will defer to a trial court's findings of credibility historical fact and find

ings Despite long they so as the supported by range are broad of compe factors consider, tent evidence in may the a court record. Id. at 462. The we have made clear inquiry legal second in requires nature and that a court not rest its conclusion that a apply court to legal the correct standard to custody defendant is in pur for Miranda the historical facts. See id. at 459. Provided poses upon policeman's "a unarticulated a trial court's adequately of fact are plan." Matheny, 46 P.3d at 464 (quoting supported record, by the primary our task on Stansbury, 323-24, 511 U.S. at 114 S.Ct. whether, review is to determine given the 1526). words, In other police officer's circumstances of the interrogation, the trial knowledge, intentions, or beliefs are rel correctly court determined whether a reason custody evant to a determination to the ex person able in the position defendant's tent that affect how a person reasonable "would believe that his freedom of action had position would evaluate his degree been curtailed to a associated with situation. See id. The mere existence of an formal arrest." (citing Id. at 464 Berkemer warrant, arrest police officer's undisclosed McCarty, 420,440, v. 3138, 104S.Ct. plan to custody, take a into or a (1984)). 82 L.Ed.2d 317 police officer's firm but unstated belief in the applying objective

When not, culpability by themselves, do test, a court must look to the establish that a custody defendant is in

354 go. ready to he was know when let him could are rele These factors purposes.4 Thiret, at 203. affect P.2d would extent "only to the vant of position in the person a reasonable how contrast, the trial court's upheld we By gauge would being questioned the individual was in that the defendant conclusion action." freedom of or her his of the breadth case, despite the In that People v. Horn. (quoting Stans 464-65, 86 S.Ct. at Id. free he was was told fact that 1526). 325, 114S.Ct. at bury, 511 U.S. accused the repeatedly go, the officers encouraged the defen lying and of defendant a scenario reviewed never have we While answers; the officers his to reconsider dant case, in this at issue the one like precisely the evidence confronted range custody cases illustrate prior our accusatory him; was interview against evaluating may consider court factors a outset; concluded the court from the custody. In Math- inis a defendant whether was questioning purpose that the "sole by erred trial court eny, we held the defendant." from a confession to obtain fact on the custody determination basing its upheld the also at We Id. 818-19.5 defen to arrest intended the officers was that the defendant court's determination Mathe questioning. the outset dant Cleburn, 782 P.2d 784 People v. custody in the reasonable Applying at 468. ny, 46 P.3d case, was (Colo.1989).6 In that the sus standard, we concluded police armed two in his home interviewed pur custody for Miranda not pect was emphasized that The trial officers. took because, although the poses ques questioning, initiated officers station, the police area of in a secured purpose of for the sole tioning conducted was police station to the himself drove defendant defendant, against the obtaining evidence the in throughout relaxed voluntarily, was (who well-acquainted with were officers mother, terview, accompanied defendant) influ coercive a "subtle exerted at form. Id. in narrative story told his friend," and the as a over the ence Further, trial court noted 1602. minutes, about 25 which lasted questioning, during ques polite were Cleburn, P.2d at relatively lengthy. tone of voice. a soft spoke with tioning and 786. Similarly, held we S.Ct. Id. mind, now turn examples in we these With custody in not in suspect was whether to determine present case voluntari went Thiret because pur- custody" for Miranda "in station, not told he was ly to the by Detective questioned he was poses when by an officer arrest, informed and was under Purvis. Archuleta and Officer that he during the point at one pres- wife's questioned his home in jurisdictions have reached other We that 4. note pos police officers ence). where conclusions different in State v. Wolfe, For a warrant. example, sess (1983), Oregon 567, P.2d 320 669 295 Or. decided before People v. Horn was 5. Because engaged police in fla Supreme Court held under a more Matheny, that case we reviewed at the sus arrived grant misconduct today. See than we use standard deferential questions warrant and asked with a pect's house Horn, ('The determination P.2d at 818 790 advised the warrant and executed before custody' 'in as result whether an individual rights. Common See also suspect Miranda of his liberty significant being deprived his Pitts, (Pa.Super.1999) 726 740 A.2d v. wealth expressly question which must be way of fact is custody" would because (suspect "in omitted). court.") (citation We by the trial made going to leave and allowed have been never however, we did in note, as Matheny, Sosinski, arrested); N.J.Super. 331 State v. to be findings only of fact made court in Horn not (statements sup 11, (App.Div.2000) A.2d 779 750 supported the record but adequately that were question with war police pressed where legal standard those applied correct also aitempt to avoid pocket a deliberate rant Miranda). (citing 6 Matheny, at 466 n. 46 P.3d See facts. Edwards, 589 N.W.2d v. see State But approval). with Horn (warrant be (Minn.App.1999) immaterial 807 at in an information suspect volunteered cause Horn, under our decided Cleburn was with 6. As treatment); v. favorable People to receive tempt 281, 207, 556 Ill.Dec. Ill.App.3d 145 supra note Bury,199 See of review. pre-Matheny standard 4. (warrant (1990) where immaterial N.E.2d 899 355 Application A trial may court conclude that testimony is "incredible as a matter of law" People contend that the trial court only when a testimony witness's conflicts misapplied Matheny by basing custody its with fully nature or established facts. See determination on the existence of the war- People Ramirez, 807, (Colo. v. 30 by considering rant and P.3d 809 police opinion App.2001). Testimony as to their belief in the defendant's rises to this level of guilt separate as a People urge factor. The incredibility when a witness describes events apply Matheny "correctly" this Court possibly she could not have seen or that are the facts of this case and hold that the defen- possible not under the laws of nature. See custody dant was not in ques- when he was Emerson, 557, (7th v. U.S. 128 F.3d 561 tioned Detective Archuleta and Officer Cir.1997); Lerma, 786, U.S. v. 657 F.2d 789 Purvis. In response, argues (5th Cir.1981); Hornsby, State v. 858 S.W.2d properly the trial court determined that 892, (Tenn.1998); State, 894 Chapman v. 69 custody defendant was in when he was 581, 824, (1975). Wis.2d 230 N.W.2d 825 On questioned by police officers at Children's hand, the other testimony merely Hospital in Denver. biased, conflicting, or inconsistent is not in agree We the trial court over credible as a matter of law. See v. emphasized legal Ramirez, significance of the war Franklin, 1, (Colo.1982); rant. The court made two with case, P .3d at 809. In this the trial warrant, respect which we address in court erred in concluding that the officers' First, turn. the court found "that when the testimony that the defendant was free to properly have a authorized arrest war if leave he had wished was incredible as a rant for an individual and he is to be interro matter of law. The trial may court make gated specific on the case for which the factual credibility determinations based on issued, warrant has been this is [an] addition impressions formed while the officers testi al factor the court can consider determin Clark, Page fied. See 197 Colo. ing, circumstances, in the of the (1979). case, P.2d In this the court whether an individual is in pur for exactly did that when it found that the offi pose of a [sic] Miranda advisement." This cers were dishonest with the defendant and per incorrect, is not se but it must be testimony their that the defendant was light evaluated in of our holding Matheny. free to leave if he chose to do so was not above, explain As we a police officer's "unar- not, however, credible. A trial may plan" ticulated bearing has no on whether an reach conclusions sup that are not eustody individual is in pur ported by Thus, the record. while we defer poses plan unless that would somehow affect to the trial credibility court's factual and way perceive reasonable would determinations, we hold that the officers' tes situation. See 46 P.3d at 464- timony respect to the defendant's free Thus, a trial court consider dom to leave is not incredible as a matter of existence of part the warrant as of the totali law. ty cireumstances, but to the ex

tent that the warrant affects perception the

of the Nonetheless, defendant. despite our conclusion that the trial court misconstrued the Second, that, the court concluded because significance warrant, of the our review of the the officers had a possession warrant in their record and of the final order reveals that the they intended to evening, execute that trial court based its "in custody" determina testimony their would "allow the tion on far more than the existence of Defendant the to leave any the room time he (re warrant. Matheny, just wished 46 P.3d at and him arrest later is incredible Cf. versing as a matter trial custody of law." court's This is determination incor- rect, but it does not because it was primarily based on the conclu affect our determination of whether the applied trial court the correct sion that officers intended to arrest the de legal standard in "in custody" analysis. its fendant from the outset questioning). of the Matheny, ..." interrogation. rounding the findings of detailed court made The Stansbury, at (quoting at 464 P.3d by competent evi supported

fact, are which 1526). case, the trial support the In this and which record in the dence in person precisely a reasonable that. court did conclusion that his believe position would defendant's then, task, remaining is to only Our degree to a was curtailed of action freedom applied trial court whether the determine The court formal arrest. with associated facts. to the historical legal standard correct dishonest officers were found explain Matheny, at 459. As we See testimony their and that with above, misinterpreted the trial court did to leave the defendant's freedom regarding However, of the warrant. legal significance credible. The room was not the interview additional, sufficient, court made the trial room, private a took in fact, are findings of all of which and detailed not, officers, physically intentionally or competent evidence in the ree- supported by The from the door. separated the defendant applied the "reasonable court also ord. The defendant, initiated contact with the officers to those facts and determined person" test distraught both visibly emotionally who was circumstances, that, totality given the of the interview. throughout outset and at the ques in room, the defen the interview Onee inside analysis we held precisely the tioned. This is and was alone with the officers dant was determining whether when a court is applies door chair from the in the farthest seated pur custody" for Miranda person is "in him and the officers sat between while the Matheny, 46 P.3d at 459-60. poses. See interview Significant portions of the door.7 highly confrontational proceeded However, trial court if we assume the even clearly accusatory atmosphere that was incorrectly standard articulated applied the The inter obtaining confession. aimed review, we hold Matheny, under de novo in of provided all rogating questions officer's in case was "in custo designed of the and were the details incident sur dy." totality of the cireumstances The agreement from the de essentially to force that a interrogation establish rounding the con interrogating officer And the fendant. position person the defendant's reasonable with the evidence fronted the defendant think that he was free to leave would not in the own belief against him and law enforcement offi room once conference guilt. explain began questioning him. As we cers above, findings of to a trial court's we defer to the factors are all relevant These by competent evi supported fact if are whether, question under Matheny, P.3d at dence the record. cireumstances, case, trial court found the In this de himself to be position would consider incredible, its testimony to be degree action to a prived of his freedom of regarding fact the cireumstances People's The with formal arrest. associated supported by compe interview are all not have trial court should argument ques The defendant tent evidence. interrogating fact considered room forty-five minutes in small tioned for in the defen communicated his belief officer who, by by two law enforcement sepa as a culpability to the defendant dant's de seating arrangement, blocked the their Nothing in our unpersuasive. is rate factor door. Unlike fendant's access a court of factors case law limits the number in this analyzes it the cireum- may consider when emotionally distraught, and the tone case was interrogation took an stances under which confrontational and ac interview was contrary, a trial court's first place. the On "it would be cusatory. officers told him analysis custody" responsibility "in The defendant did ... to talk now." sur- better all of the cireumstances to "examine was asked to sit was "di- testified that 7. The court found was furthest from to the chair in which he no evidence in the record rected down, but there is intentionally directed the defendant reveals that Our review of the record the door." any particular chair. Archuleta this is somewhat overstated. relaxed, give not his statements narra- Police conduct be considered the func- style tive but rather was confronted re- equivalent tional interrogation if it em- peatedly interrogating with the officer's ver- ploys "compelling influences or psychological encouraged sion of events and to admit that ploys in tandem police custody with to obtain Horn, this version was accurate. As in confessions." Id. at 242. subject repeated accusa- case, In this although the defendant was Overall, tions. in mood the room was undeniably in custody when he was allowed confrontational, tense and and the defendant wife, to see speak and police did subjected to the mode and manner of engage not any in psychological ploys to ob- police suspect use when a is tain incriminating against evidence him. is, not free to leave-that after a has Nothing in the record indicates that the offi- formally been arrested and advised of his cers made tactical decision when rights. wife, allowed the defendant to see his and Here, viewing of the cireum- nothing in the suggests record it was stances, a reasonable in the defen- anything other than the defendant's own position dant's would have considered that he speak Thus, choice to to her. we hold that being degree restrained ato associated the defendant was subject not to the func- with formal arrest. It certainly appropri- equivalent tional of interrogation when he police ate for to use confrontational interro- made statements to his in presence wife gation techniques to obtain evidence of erimi- officers, and therefore those state- However, nal conduct. police when create an ments should not suppressed. have been atmosphere equivalent to that of formal ar- by questioning rest who is isolated Conclusion room, by in a small effectively blocking his above, For reasons set forth we hold that exit, access to the room's confronting in custody when he was repeatedly him weight with the of the evi- questioned by police officers at Children's him, against dence by telling and him that he Hospital Denver, in and that he was not is free to leave all external cireum- subject to the equivalent functional of inter- appear contrary, stances they must rogation subsequently when he spoke with begin type this of interrogation with the Mi- in his wife presence. Thus we randa advisements. The officers' failure to affirm in part, in part, reverse and remand to so advise the defendant under these cireum- the trial court for further proceedings consis- stances renders statements tent opinion. with this inadmissible prosecution's case-in- chief, as court concluded. Justice part COATSconcurs in Finally, we address the trial court's part, dissents joins and Justice KOURLIS suppressing order the statements the defen in the concurrence and dissent. dant made to his wife after he was taken COATS, Justice concurring part custody. into The trial court summarily dissenting part. found that allowing into the interview a Despite spouse concluding that recently who had the trial court been told that her husband injuring confessed to their child apply standard, failed to the correct room is equivalent the functional maj. op. interro and "overstated" some of its gation. findings, maj. response, factual op. at People n. cite Gonzales, (Colo.1999), 987 P.2d 239 majority nevertheless concludes that addi- explained which we "interrogation" tional of fact the trial court are express means either questioning by sufficient to establish under the cor- officer or "words or actions ... rect standard. Because I believe the exist- officer should reasonably likely know are ing wholly record is inadequate support elicit an incriminating response from the de novo custody by determination of Gonzales, (cita suspect." court, 987 P.2d at 241 I would clearly reverse the trial court's omitted). ruling flawed tions and pro- quotation remand for further internal marks her, and immediately located of the officers por- that dissent from I therefore ceedings. in. permitted to come sup- she was opinion upholding majority the tion of pression. not indicate Similarly, the record did in a room but took small acknowledges, the the interview readily majority As the The comparatively large one. rather legal signifi the misapprehended court trial of the concerning the nature only evidence in this case. Its warrant arrest cance of the present those positioning the of room and it considered rele doubt ruling left no that, typical police a interro- unlike custody the fact indicated of determination vant to the room, hospital meeting room gation it was a already judicial au had the detectives (as room"), "private a distinguished from defendant and therefore thority to arrest the twelve, seating a and, large enough to house table him simi arrest intended to must bave telling him dishonest and other chairs have been to a television larly, must addition watching. Nowhere was the majority positioned for to leave. As the was free that he described, the relative to location of the table out, cireumstances test points door, support any there evidence to custody turns nor was question of assessing the for effectively finding a that the detectives were person in of a reasonable perceptions on the door, blocking access to the the defendant's rather than the sub position him sitting between trial or even that were officers. The jective intent only reference fatally and the door. was therefore legal conclusion court's partici- positions of the flawed.8 record to the relative the defendant was sit- pants indicated Nevertheless, majority concludes that away Pur- ting feet from Detective some ten atmosphere equivalent "an created Archuleta that Purvis and Detective vis and by arrest formal to that of than the defendant to the door. were nearer room, in a small isolated [was] who concedes, majority undisputed As the blocking his access to effectively by testimony defendant was told exit, confronting him re- indicated the by only room's talk to the detectives and weight the evidence that he need not peatedly with time, at and the him, that he was free to leave by telling [was] him that he against factual to that ef- cireum- trial court made when all the external to leave free majority's qualification that "all contrary." Maj. fect. The appear[ed] to stances fact, appear[ed] to the con- are external cireumstances propositions these op. at by the record unsupported finding completely trary," maj. op. was neither a either permissible inference insufficient, of the trial court nor a to the extent that some or are fact, court, in testimony. The trial justify conclu- from support, partial find only were dishonest found that the detectives custody. sion indicating to the defendant that he would only was "isolated" Initially, the defendant leave, actually criti- and it was be allowed detectives were in the that the sense by majority failing appreciate cized him. room with Noth- persons in the other ap- question of turned on suggested that he ing in the record de- pearances rather than the intent of the room not come into the deceived or had tectives. (He directed to that voluntarily. had been nurses.) majority's inference anything To the extent Nor did location have, finding that drawn from the trial court's or was suggest that he wanted the defendant and anyone the detectives sat between having, else any way prevented staff, doorway the fact that the defendant Hospital rather him. in the room with against detectives, with the evidence the door as was confronted closed than the him, supported no more the former was left, clearly not locked. When it was wife, court's the record than the trial eventually for his one asked 318, 326, regarded subjective on de California, focus Stansbury 8. See 128 L.Ed.2d 293 significant in and of as fendant as (1994)(Remand despite required consideration of itself). factors, appropriate where number of

359 the defendant was directed to chair evade detection. Arizona, v. 436, 1602, door, 384 U.S. 356, maj. op. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 from the furthest see at n. latter, itself, (1966), imply and the does not Supreme United States Court the defendant must have felt that squarely rejected he was no the notion that confessions longer entitled to withdraw from way the interv are in unworthy some evidence or an undisputed only iew.9 The record is way undesirable of solving Instead, crimes. after the defendant sought made clear his wish to it only provide to an pro additional ("No, talking") talk I'm to the detectives and police tection from coercion in situations attempts allay made several to suspi- comparable their to inherently coercive atmo by giving explanations they clons sphere knew of the stationhouse interrogation. medically impossible, to be did chal Because the defendant asserted and the trial lenge his account.10 court erroneously found it to be improper for attempt officers to a consensual interview majority, Unlike the I would not hold that suspect a they already whom had plainclothes detectives,11 two without visible grounds arrest, to the record in this case not weapons,12 verbally confronting an unrestrained surprisingly fails to address or support a suspe ct,13 in an hospital unlocked custody of under correct room,14 notifying TV after him that he is free standard. Rather attempt than pour to them,15 to leave rather than talk to with the bottles, court's old into new I voluntarily lies he has told them in an at would remand for reconsideration in light of tempt himself, suspicion away to shift proper legal standard. infringement amounts to an liberty on his to such an extent that it is commensurate with a I therefore part concur in and dissent point, formal arrest. At such a part. concessions are, mind, a my naturally more I am authorized to state that Justice explained by his realization that attempts his joins KOURLIS partial concurrence deception at have not failed but have partial dissent. actually police suspicions, increased and that

further fabrication will improve posi not

tion, rather than because of reasonable

perception has, effect, already he

been arrested.

Apprehending punishing those who crimes,

commit is not a requiring contest

perpetrator given sporting be chance to Polander, (de- Oregon 12. v. 9. See Mathiason, 492, 497, 97 Cf. (1977) S.Ct. ("Any 50 L.Ed.2d 714 police fendant not confined at station nor did suspected interview of one police of a crime guns, officers draw use handcuffs or otherwise it, aspects simply by officer will have coercive typically demonstrate the kind force associated police part virtue of the fact that the officer is arrest); generally Wayne with an see R. La- system law enforcement ultimately which Fave, 6.6(F) Nancy King § Jerold H. Israel & J. charged cause the to be awith crime. (West Group, Supp.2003)(A 1999 & police required But the officers are not to admin likely purposes more to find for Miranda warnings everyone ister Miranda whom physical handcuffing, if there is restraint such as question. requirement warnings Nor is the arm, drawing gun, holding by placing or imposed simply be because the takes car.). into a house, ques in the station or because the police suspect."); tioned is one whom the 13. Id. Matheny, (quoting see also P.3d Mathi ). ason Matheny, (noting 14. signifi- 46 P.3d at 466 Cf. Matheny, 10. (noting signifi- 46 P.3d at 466 Cf. room). cance of unlocked interview cance of fact that the "initial tone" was conver- sational). 15. (noting 46 P.3d at 466 such Matheny, Cf. (noting signifi- 46 P.3d at 456 advisement as one indication that the defendant's Cf. uniformed). cance curtailed). of fact that officers were not freedom of action had not been

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Minjarez

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Dec 15, 2003

Citation: 81 P.3d 348

Docket Number: 03SA219

Court Abbreviation: Colo.