People v. Valdez, 98SA214

• Decision Date: 07 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98SA214,98SA214
• Citation: 969 P.2d 208
• Parties: 98 CJ C.A.R. 5988 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Joseph VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 208

969 P.2d 208

98 CJ C.A.R. 5988

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Joseph VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98SA214.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Dec. 7, 1998.

Stuart A. Vanmeveren, District Attorney, Eighth Judicial District, Mitchell T. Murray, Deputy District Attorney, Fort Collins, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Kathryn Gilbert, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Defendant-Appellee.

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The prosecution brought this interlocutory appeal pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 to challenge a district court order suppressing statements made by the defendant, Dennis Valdez, during a custodial interrogation by two police officers. The district court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's statements were involuntary. We reverse the order of suppression.

I.

The defendant is charged with two counts of sexual assault on a child in violation of section 18-3-405, 6 C.R.S. (1998), and one count of enticement of a child in violation of section 18-3-305, 6 C.R.S. (1998). On November 4, 1997, the Loveland Police were called to investigate the allegations of two young girls who claimed that Valdez had sexually assaulted them. In their statement to police, F.J., age eight, and K.S., age seven, reported that they had been playing hide-and-seek in Valdez's apartment building when they decided to ask Valdez whether they could use his bathroom. Valdez answered the door and let them in to use the bathroom. While the girls were leaving his apartment, Valdez stopped them and asked them if they wanted to earn some money. They then followed Valdez to his truck, which was parked near the building. When they arrived at the truck, Valdez gave them seventy-five cents, then proceeded to put his hand inside one girl's pants, touching her genital area. The other child claimed that Valdez put his hand under her shirt and touched her breasts. The girls immediately reported the incident to their families.

On November 6, 1997, the police arrested Valdez on an unrelated warrant. Evidence presented at the preliminary hearing established that Officer Chuck Sutterfield began interrogating Valdez at 8:21 p.m. At that time, Sutterfield was dressed in street clothing and was not armed. Before interviewing Valdez, Sutterfield advised him of his Miranda rights. Valdez signed a written waiver of his rights.

Officer Sutterfield testified that after Valdez waived his rights, Sutterfield advised Valdez that he was a suspect in the alleged assault of two girls in Valdez's neighborhood. For about ten seconds, Valdez sat silently, at which point Sutterfield asked Valdez if he cared to respond to the allegation. Valdez only replied, "No." When Sutterfield asked Valdez if he wished to continue talking, Valdez indicated that he wanted to proceed with the interview. The officer then asked Valdez if the girls' allegations were true. Valdez responded, "I don't think so."

After this initial exchange, Valdez began evading Sutterfield's questions. Whenever Sutterfield asked Valdez a direct question regarding the allegations, Valdez responded with unrelated stories about his wife, his children, and his religious life. At one point during this conversation, Sutterfield asked Valdez if he intended to be truthful during the interview. Valdez only responded, "Maybe."

During the course of the interview, Valdez acknowledged that the girls had visited his apartment to use the bathroom on the day in question. However, Valdez claimed that he walked out of the apartment while they were in the bathroom and did not see them again.

Sutterfield admitted that he ultimately became frustrated with Valdez's evasive responses. In fact, Sutterfield testified that he discontinued the interrogation because Valdez was being "deceitful," then walked out of the room. Sutterfield's entire interview with Valdez lasted between twenty and twenty-five minutes.

Five minutes after Sutterfield left Valdez, Officer Steven Crowe entered the interview room. Although Crowe was wearing his uniform, he was unarmed. After reminding Valdez of his constitutional rights, Crowe asked Valdez if he wished to discuss the allegations further. Valdez agreed to speak with Crowe about the allegations. During the interview, Valdez told Crowe that he sometimes allowed children from his neighborhood to play in his truck. Crowe asked Valdez whether he could have touched the girls accidentally. Valdez did not respond to the question and changed the subject. Crowe then asked Valdez if someone could have seen him lifting up the girls and misconstrued it as inappropriate touching. Valdez responded, "It could have happened that way."

When Crowe left the room to get a glass of water for Valdez, Crowe slipped a tape recorder into his jacket pocket. As a result, part of Crowe's interview with Valdez was tape-recorded. During this portion of the interview, Valdez told Crowe that he liked talking to Crowe because he felt that Crowe understood him better than Sutterfield. Valdez further stated that he had "argued" with Sutterfield because Sutterfield was condemning him for something he did not do. Valdez also complained about Sutterfield's interview techniques. He claimed that Sutterfield asked him questions in rapid succession and did not allow him a "chance to try to think about anything."

At one point during Crowe's interview, Valdez expressed a desire to terminate the questioning. Valdez stated, "Just let me get some sleep.... I just want to think about everything." While Crowe acknowledged Valdez's request, he continued to interrogate him. Crowe's interview of Valdez lasted for approximately one hour.

Throughout the course of both interviews, Valdez never admitted any wrongdoing. He consistently denied having had any inappropriate physical contact with either child. Nevertheless, the prosecution seeks to introduce several statements that Valdez made during these interviews, including: (1) his three initial responses to Sutterfield when he was confronted with the sexual assault allegations; (2) his evasive responses to the officers' questions regarding the incident; (3) his admission that the girls had been to his apartment to use the bathroom; (4) his acknowledgement that the whole incident may have arisen from a misunderstanding; and (5) his statement that he sometimes allowed neighborhood children to play in his truck. None of these statements were made after Valdez's request to terminate the interrogation.

Valdez moved to suppress the introduction of these statements on the grounds that they were involuntary. The trial court held that Valdez's statements from both interviews were made involuntarily and ordered them suppressed. This appeal followed.

II.

When a defendant challenges the voluntariness of a statement, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made the statement voluntarily. See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); People v. Trujillo, 938 P.2d 117, 126 (Colo.1997); People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 843 (Colo.1991). Critical to any finding of involuntariness is the existence of coercive governmental conduct, either physical or mental, that plays a significant role in inducing a confession or an inculpatory statement. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Gennings, 808 P.2d at 845. In essence, the question at issue is whether the individual's will has been overborne. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 307, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963); People v. Mendoza-Rodriguez, 790 P.2d 810, 816 (Colo.1990). A defendant's mental condition, by itself and apart from its relationship to official coercion, does not resolve the issue of constitutional voluntariness. See Connelly, 479 U.S. at 164, 107 S.Ct. 515; Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844. However, the deliberate exploitation of a person's weaknesses by psychological intimidation can, under certain circumstances, constitute coercion rendering a statement involuntary. See Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844.

In determining whether a defendant's statements are voluntary, a trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statements. See Trujillo, 938 P.2d at 126. This court has articulated several factors to consider when evaluating the voluntariness of a statement in light of the totality of the circumstances, including:

whether the defendant was in custody or was free to leave and was aware of his situation; whether Miranda warnings were given prior to any interrogation and whether the defendant understood and waived his Miranda rights; whether the challenged statement was made during the course of an interrogation or instead was volunteered; whether any overt or implied threat or promise was directed to the defendant; the method and style employed by the interrogator in questioning the defendant and the length and place of the interrogation; and the defendant's mental and physical condition immediately prior to and during the interrogation, as well as his educational background, employment status, and prior experience with law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844.

In ruling on a motion to suppress a custodial statement, a trial court must engage in both fact-finding, which involves a specific inquiry into the factual circumstances of the case, and law application, which involves the application of the controlling legal standard to the facts established by the evidence. See People v. Quezada, 731 P.2d 730, 732 (Colo.1987). A trial court's findings of fact are entitled to deference by a reviewing court and will not be overturned if supported by competent evidence in the record. See id.; People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 236 (Colo.1982). However, an ultimate conclusion of constitutional law that is inconsistent with or unsupported by...