P. v. Christian

Filed 10/20/06 P. v. Christian CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

A jury found defendant Charles Granville Christian guilty of three counts of robbery and found two firearm enhancement allegations true. Defendant timely appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress his statement to the police because: 1) the statement was not voluntary; and 2) the interrogation began before he was given Miranda^[1] warnings. After reviewing the record and the interrogation videotape, we conclude the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The underlying facts are largely immaterial to the issue on appeal. Suffice it to say that defendant was charged with three counts of robbery in the second degree, with allegations that in the commission of counts two and three he personally used a firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b). The facts surrounding defendant’s statement to the police, however, are material and are given below.

On September 23, 2004, Detective Chris Wilder of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department interrogated defendant regarding his involvement in three robberies that had occurred in Sacramento County. The interrogation can be broken down into two time frames: 1) those statements made before the Miranda warnings; and 2) those statements made after the Miranda warnings.

The following colloquy took place before Detective Chris Wilder gave the Miranda warnings: Detective Wilder brought defendant, a shirtless, 19-year-old male, into the interrogation room at 10:22 a.m. and handcuffed him to the table and left him alone until he returned at 10:49 a.m. Detective Wilder asked defendant if everything was okay, and defendant responded, “When I started doing good then this shit come back up on me.” Detective Wilder questioned, “Started doing good?” Defendant replied, “Yeah. Like get a job and try to do the right thing.” Detective Wilder responded, “Uh-huh.” Defendant continued, “Then shit like this comes up. My actions from a long time ago, you know when I wasn’t thinking right. Now that I’m thinking right, that old shit starts to come back. . . .” Detective Wilder declared, “Well, the important thing is just to keep doing the right thing and, you know, be honest about what you’ve been involved in. And, you know don’t play games with people and the right thing will happen for you.” Defendant said, “I hope so.” Detective Wilder continued, “Okay. You understand what you’re -- been arrested for?” There was no audible response to Detective Wilder’s question. Detective Wilder queried, “No?” Defendant responded, “No.” Detective Wilder questioned, “What -- what did you mean when you say things catch up with you? What things caught up? What do you mean by that?” Defendant replied, “I’ll let you tell me that and I’ll tell you if I did it or not.” Detective Wilder responded, “Oh.” Defendant continued, “But I’m just saying my -- my -- my bad actions that I did in the past might be coming up on me right now.”

The conversation then turned to the police’s conduct when they came to arrest defendant in his home. Detective Wilder questioned, “Why were you hiding in the closet?” Defendant replied, “They said somebody -- they said Eddie or something. I don’t know. I’m not Eddie I just --.” Detective Wilder questioned again, “You’re just a guy who goes to the closet?” Defendant responded, “I’m just going -- I’m going to the -- I already know I’m in -- I got warrants.” Detective Wilder and defendant then spoke regarding defendant’s outstanding warrant for missing a drug diversion program. Detective Wilder then informed defendant that he needed to get some background information. Defendant responded by saying, “I ain’t got no shirt. I couldn’t even grab a shirt. I knew it was going to be cold in these facilities.” Detective Wilder replied that they would try to get him out of there as quickly as possible. Detective Wilder continued to get basic background information from defendant, including full name, address, phone number, place of work, health, whether he was taking any medications or drugs, whether he was using drugs, the name of his girlfriend and so forth. Once Detective Wilder finished gathering background information, he gave defendant the Miranda warnings.^[2] Detective Wilder then asked defendant, “You understand that?” Defendant replied, “Yes, I do.”

The following conversation took place after Detective Wilder read defendant his Miranda warnings: Detective Wilder asked defendant, “With [your rights] in mind, would you like to talk to me about what’s going on?” Defendant responded, “I don’t know what’s going on, you know I -- .” Detective Wilder stated, “Well, I got -- before we can start talking I got to know if you want to talk to me.” Defendant replied, “Well, I am willing to talk to you.” Detective Wilder stated, “Okay.” Defendant stated, “I don’t have no problem talking.” Detective Wilder then stated, “Okay. Well, uh, this all goes back to your past job at Papa Murphy’s and the robberies that were pulled there. I think you -- you’ve been identified, fingerprints, palm print was identified. Um, basically we just need kind of an explanation of why.”

Detective Wilder and defendant then spoke regarding the three robberies. Defendant confessed to committing them and admitted that he used a firearm during the last two. Detective Wilder then told defendant that he believed defendant was not being completely honest with him and that he was leaving some things out and Detective Wilder was going to give him some time to think about it. Defendant explained to Detective Wilder that he was not leaving anything out. Defendant then asked Detective Wilder, “You don’t got a shirt I can use?” Detective Wilder responded, “Well, if you’re not going to be telling me anything else, then we’re just going to take off. It’s warm outside. Um, take you down to the jail.” Defendant replied, “Um, can you give me a shirt before I go in there, ‘cause I know I’m going to be in the holding tank for like 17 --.” Detective Wilder followed, “I don’t have one. They might have one down there. Like a jail shirt or something. I don’t have anything to give you.” Defendant continued, “Oh, it’s hecka cold. I couldn’t even grab me a shirt.”

Detective Wilder then asked whether defendant participated in a fourth robbery. Defendant denied any such participation. Detective Wilder asked defendant if he had any dope or any identification. Defendant responded that he had nothing, “I just threw some shorts on. I was in my boxers, I just threw this on.” At that moment, Detective Wilder left the room. When he returned, defendant asked, “They’re not going to give me no shirt . . . please give me something. A sweater or something.” Detective Wilder responded, “Okay. We’re going to be on our way.” Defendant then asked whether he could use the bathroom, to which Detective Wilder told him that he could on the way out.

At this moment, Detective Wilder showed defendant photographs that had been taken by a camera during one of the robberies, and asked defendant if he recognized anyone in the photos. Defendant responded that he was the man depicted in the photo holding the gun. Detective Wilder asked defendant to sign his full name and write “that’s me” next to the photo and defendant did. Detective Wilder then stated, “Okay. Appreciate your honesty. I think the right thing’s going to happen.”

Detective Wilder then questioned defendant regarding the location of the gun used in the robbery, but defendant denied knowledge of its location. Defendant again asked for a sweater, stating he knew it was going to be cold in jail and that nobody there was going to give him one. Detective Wilder stated that it was warm outside and that they were going to get defendant out of this cold room. The interrogation ended shortly thereafter.

On July 18, 2005, the first day of trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements. The trial court agreed to review the transcript and video recording of the interrogation. The court also conducted a brief Evidence Code section 402 hearing with Detective Wilder to determine the nature of the conversation, if any, between defendant and the detective prior to the videotape being turned on.

In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court listed detailed factual findings and legal conclusions supporting its decision. Specifically, the court found that defendant’s statement was not involuntary due to physical discomfort. The trial court noted that when Detective Wilder reentered the room after initially bringing defendant in, he asked defendant how he was doing. The trial court found that defendant did not complain about being uncomfortable, but complained that just when he starts to do good, bad stuff comes up.

The trial court also swept aside defendant’s complaint that the detective deceived him by telling him the police had his prints from the crime scene and therefore his statement was involuntary. The trial court determined that case law did not prohibit law enforcement from using deception unless the deception is reasonably likely to produce an untrue statement.

The third issue the trial court addressed was defendant’s claim that he was not specifically told the charges. The trial court noted that although defendant was young, he was fairly savvy. The trial court recognized that at one point defendant tried to get Detective Wilder to tell him the nature of the charges. The trial court explained that it was not aware of any case law that required that the defendant be told the specific charges under Miranda.

Lastly, in dealing with the voluntariness of defendant’s statement, the trial court discussed defendant’s claim that Detective Wilder inappropriately suggested leniency to defendant. The trial court discussed Detective Wilder’s statement, “be honest about what you’ve been involved in, and, you know, don’t play games with people, and the right thing will happen for you.” The trial court found that Detective Wilder’s statement did not expressly or implicitly suggest leniency. The trial court analogized the detective’s statement to telling a defendant that telling the truth was important and in his best interest. The trial court found that the two statements were very similar and that the latter had been determined appropriate.

Based on the above individual findings, and also considering them in totality, the trial court concluded defendant’s statement was voluntary.

The trial court next addressed defendant’s argument that the pre-Miranda questioning spoiled the statement in toto. The trial court found there were approximately seven minutes of pre-Miranda conversation. It also found the bulk of that conversation concerned background material. The trial court noted one question in particular by the detective regarding why defendant was hiding. The trial court determined, however, that the question concerned the “circumstances of the arrest, but nothing specific about the facts of the crime at all.”

Again, the trial court stated it was unaware of any case law that indicated brief background questioning renders a subsequent Miranda waiver invalid or a statement involuntary. To the contrary, it noted case law “which indicates that this type of basic brief background gathering information is permissible prior to Miranda warnings.”

Finally, the trial court stated that defendant was a bright young man. In fact, the court noted that defendant stated so himself in the interview, and he was eager to talk. Based on all the forgoing reasons, the court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement.

DISCUSSION

Defendant now contends the trial court erred in allowing the statement because: 1) the statement was not voluntary; and 2) the interrogation began prior to the Miranda warnings. We disagree.

I

Voluntariness

First, defendant contends his statement to Detective Wilder was involuntary and therefore should have been suppressed. Specifically, defendant argues that his age, his alleged inexperience with the criminal justice system, being handcuffed to a table and shirtless in a cold room, not knowing what he was charged with, having to go to the bathroom, and promises of leniency militate against the trial court’s finding that defendant’s statement was voluntary. We disagree.

When the defendant challenges his confession as involuntary, it is inadmissible at trial unless the prosecution establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that it was voluntary. (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 659-660.) “A confession or admission is involuntary, and thus subject to exclusion at trial, only if it is the product of coercive police activity.” (Id. at p. 659.) The appellate court reviews, de novo, the trial court’s determination on the issue of voluntariness, while reviewing under the deferential substantial evidence standard, the trial court’s historical findings of fact surrounding the confession. (Id. at pp. 659-660.)

“In deciding the question of voluntariness, the United States Supreme Court has directed courts to consider ‘the totality of circumstances.’ [Citations.] Relevant are ‘the crucial element of police coercion [citation]; the length of the interrogation [citation]; its location [citation]; its continuity’ as well as ‘the defendant’s maturity [citation]; education [citation]; physical condition [citation]; and mental health.’” (People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 660, quoting Withrow v. Williams (1993) 507 U.S. 680, 693 [123 L.Ed.2d 407, 420].)

A confession is voluntary if the suspect’s decision to speak is entirely “‘self-motivated’” because he freely and voluntarily chooses to speak without any form of compulsion or promise of reward. (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 327-328.) No single factor is dispositive in determining the question of voluntariness. (People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 660.)

Lies told by the police to a suspect under questioning do not render the confession involuntary per se. The court must look to see whether the deception is reasonably likely to procure an untrue confession. (People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 182.) Similarly, police trickery, by itself, does not render a confession involuntary (People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 167) because subterfuge is not necessarily coercive (People v. Felix (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 879, 885-886). Thus, if the defendant is led to believe he might reasonably expect benefits in the nature of more lenient treatment at the hands of the police, the prosecution, or the court, in consideration of making the statement, even if truthful, such motivation is deemed to render the statement involuntary. (People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 115.) However, mere advice or exhortation that it would be better to tell the truth, when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise, does not render a subsequent confession involuntary when the benefit pointed out is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful statement. (Ibid.)

Here the relevant considerations support the trial court’s finding that the confession was voluntary. At the time of the interview, defendant was 19 years old and had obtained his G.E.D.

It is clear from watching the videotape and reviewing the transcripts that defendant was not under any physical duress, nor did Detective Wilder use extreme tactics. The atmosphere was calm, and Detective Wilder and defendant carried on in a respectful, conversational tone. Moreover, from the moment Detective Wilder returned to the interrogation room, defendant was willing to talk and did so. Detective Wilder did not coax defendant into speaking. Defendant was forthcoming and responsive to all of the detective’s questions. Defendant was an intelligent young man who was willing to admit the crimes he had committed.

When Detective Wilder read defendant his Miranda rights, defendant acknowledged that he understood them. Further, when Detective Wilder made it clear that he needed to know if defendant wanted to talk to him, defendant responded, “Well, I am willing to talk to you. . . . I don’t have no problem talking.”

Nevertheless, defendant argues that when Detective Wilder told him “[b]e honest about what you’ve been involved in. And, you know don’t play games with people that the right thing will happen for you,” he created an inference that defendant would get more lenient treatment if he confessed. We disagree. It is apparent from the record that Detective Wilder’s statement was a response to defendant’s complaint that when he tries do the right thing and get his life back on track, his bad actions from the past catch up to him. Moreover, we fail to see any promise of leniency in this statement. The detective was merely suggesting that it was better for defendant to be honest.

Defendant also argues his inexperience with the criminal justice system, being cold and having to go to the bathroom, and not knowing the specific charges are factors evidencing that his statement was involuntary. We are not persuaded.

First, defendant contends his inexperience with the criminal justice system should be considered when determining whether his statement was voluntary. After reviewing the record, however, it is clear defendant was very familiar with the criminal justice system^[3] and therefore his argument has no legs to stand on.

Defendant also contends he was cold and had to go to the bathroom during the interrogation and these factors are further evidence of the involuntary nature of his statement. From viewing the videotape, defendant did appear at times to be cold and he did ask Detective Wilder for a shirt on numerous occasions. It was equally clear from the videotape, however, that defendant was not suffering, nor was his will overborne. Moreover, defendant’s later questions regarding a sweatshirt were based on the fact that he knew it was going to be cold in jail and he would not get a jacket in jail. After watching the videotape, we conclude the cool temperature in the interrogation room did not affect defendant’s decision to waive his Miranda rights.

Regarding defendant’s argument that he needed to use the bathroom, the record is clear that he did not need to use the bathroom until the end of the interrogation, long after defendant had waived his Miranda rights and confessed to the crimes. Moreover, Detective Wilder concluded the interrogation so defendant could use the bathroom. Therefore, defendant’s argument is unpersuasive.

Lastly, defendant alleges he did not know the charges against him and that is further evidence of the involuntary nature of his statement. The trial court noted, in its adjudication of this issue, that defendant showed he was fairly savvy when he tried to get Detective Wilder to tell him the nature of the charges. The trial court also noted it was not aware of, nor was it presented, any case requiring law enforcement, under the Miranda rule, to specify the charges to defendant for a Miranda waiver to be valid. We agree.

The United States Supreme Court wrote in Colorado v. Spring (1987) 479 U.S. 564, 574 [93 L.Ed.2d 954, 966] that “[t]he Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege. [Citations.] The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee is both simpler and more fundamental: A defendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself in any respect. The Miranda warnings protect this privilege by ensuring that a suspect knows that he may choose not to talk to law enforcement officers, to talk only with counsel present, or to discontinue talking at any time. The Miranda warnings ensure that a waiver of these rights is knowing and intelligent by requiring that the suspect be fully advised of this constitutional privilege, including the critical advice that whatever he chooses to say may be used as evidence against him.” Here, defendant’s argument that he did not know the specific charges against him is unavailing. Detective Wilder read defendant the Miranda warnings, and defendant declared that he understood them. Detective Wilder was not required to inform defendant of anything else.

We therefore conclude under the totality of circumstances, the confession was voluntary.

II

Interrogation Before Miranda Warnings

Defendant contends the interrogation began prior to receiving Miranda warnings and therefore his statement must be suppressed.^[4] In response, the People argue Detective Wilder did not interrogate defendant prior to Miranda, but collected basic background information. The trial court found that the pre-Miranda questioning was indeed almost entirely related to background questions and concluded the pre-Miranda questioning did not constitute interrogation for purposes of Miranda. We conclude, after reviewing the record, Detective Wilder’s pre-Miranda questioning did not prevent defendant from effectively waiving his Miranda rights.

Defendant cites no authority indicating that questioning prior to Miranda will lead to the suppression of statements made after Miranda. To the contrary, authority exists that authorities may elicit routine background information without offending the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. (People v. Quiroga (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 961, 967.) The trial court noted that Detective Wilder’s question regarding defendant being hidden in the closet when police arrived was borderline. However, the trial court determined the question concerned the arrest and was not related to the facts of the crime itself. Without deciding whether the questions regarding defendant’s presence in the closet constitute interrogation, it is clear the answers to those questions did not provide incriminating facts and there is no legal basis shown to suppress the later, incriminating statements made after the Miranda warnings because police elicited earlier nonincriminating statements before Miranda. Stated another way, the later incriminating statements have not been shown to be the fruit of any interrogation that occurred before the Miranda warnings.

The pre-Miranda conversation lasted only seven minutes, with a majority of those minutes dedicated to cataloging basic background information.^[5] Moreover, the conversation not concerning background information was initiated by defendant. It was clear from the videotape that defendant was eager to talk. The initial statements made by defendant and Detective Wilder in no way affected defendant’s ability to waive his Miranda rights and talk to the detective.

Therefore, we conclude Detective Wilder’s pre-Miranda questions do not invalidate defendant’s post-Miranda confessions. Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

SCOTLAND , P.J.

NICHOLSON , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.

^[1] Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].

^[2] Detective Wilder read to defendant, “You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say may be used against [you] in court. You have the right to the presence of an attorney before and during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you free of charge before any questioning if you want.”

^[3] Defendant has been prosecuted four times for misdemeanor violations when he was a juvenile.

^[4] It is important here to note that defendant does not argue whatever statements he made to police before he received the Miranda warnings should have been suppressed -- presumably because those statements were not incriminatory. Instead, defendant essentially argues that his later, incriminatory statements (about committing the robberies) should have been suppressed, even though he had waived his Miranda rights by the time he made those statements, because of the earlier questioning before Miranda was given.

^[5] It appeared from the videotape that the Detective Wilder was reading the background questions from a form, and filling in the answers as he went along.