People v. Bonilla-Barraza

Decision Date22 June 2009
Docket NumberNo. 09SA6.,09SA6.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Anselmo BONILLA-BARRAZA, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Daniel H. May, District Attorney, 4th Judicial District, Laurel Huston, Deputy District Attorney, Laurel Cain, Deputy District Attorney, Doyle Baker, Deputy District Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Todd Johnson, Deputy State Public Defender, Kimberly C. Chalmers, Deputy State Public Defender, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee.

Justice HOBBS delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this interlocutory appeal brought under C.A.R. 4.1, the prosecution challenges the trial court's order suppressing statements the defendant, Anselmo Bonilla-Barraza, made while in police custody.1 Police advised Bonilla-Barraza of his Miranda2 rights after taking him into custody. Bonilla-Barraza then invoked his right to remain silent in two separate interviews, but police subjected him to further interrogation in both of those interviews and in a third interview.

We affirm the trial court's suppression order.3 We hold, under the totality of the circumstances, that the police violated Bonilla-Barraza's constitutional right to remain silent by continuing to conduct custodial interrogation of him on three occasions after he had clearly invoked that right. Consequently, the statements Bonilla-Barraza made in those interrogations are inadmissible in this case.

I.

On the evening of April 23, 2008, a 911 dispatcher received a call from a nine-year-old girl, who reported that her parents had been fighting and that her mother was dead. Upon arriving at the trailer where the girl lived, police officers found the mother's body. Bonilla-Barraza, the victim's fiancé, was present at the trailer, along with his three stepchildren aged nine, seven, and six years, and a nine-month-old girl who was the daughter of the victim and Bonilla-Barraza.

The Colorado Springs police transported Bonilla-Barraza and the four children to the police operations center, and placed Bonilla-Barraza in an interview room. At 11:30 p.m., about an hour after Bonilla-Barraza was placed in the interview room and about two and a half hours after the 911 call, Detective Wayne Bichel of the Colorado Springs Police Department began to question Bonilla-Barraza. A translator was present at this interview and at subsequent interviews to interpret for Bonilla-Barraza, who is a native of Mexico and does not speak English.

Detective Bichel initially asked Bonilla-Barraza about personal identifying information, such as his date of birth and occupation, and then read him Miranda warnings. Detective Bichel asked, "Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to me now?" Bonilla-Barraza answered, "No." Before ending the interview, Detective Bichel asked Bonilla-Barraza a total of twelve further questions about the names, ages, and gender of the children, and which of the four children he had fathered. He also asked whether Bonilla-Barraza had any questions for him, to which Bonilla-Barraza replied, "Not right now, no."

After Detective Bichel ended the interview, Bonilla-Barraza remained in the interview room. The police offered him drinks and restroom visits, took photographs of his body, and told him to change into a jail uniform. At least some of this time, Bonilla-Barraza's stepchildren were playing outside the interview room and could be heard from within the room.

Detective Bichel returned around 2:00 a.m. on April 24. He did not give Miranda warnings at this time. After Detective Bichel told Bonilla-Barraza that the children's grandmother had taken the children, the following exchange occurred:

Detective Bichel: And earlier you said you didn't want to talk to me, have you thought about things more? Do you want to tell me—talk to me now—tell me what happened?

Bonilla-Barraza (via interpreter): Well actually no ... no.

Detective Bichel: OK. Is there a reason why?

Bonilla-Barraza (via interpreter): No, because what happened is bad ... I know you have to do more paperwork for me, but it is just too difficult.

Detective Bichel: With you sitting here, have you come up with any questions for me?

Bonilla-Barraza (via interpreter): Well for now the only question I had was about the kids.

Detective Bichel informed Bonilla-Barraza that he would be transported to a hospital for some tests, and the interview ended.

Detective Bichel interviewed Bonilla-Barraza a third time on the afternoon of April 25, at the county jail. On this occasion, Bonilla-Barraza was wearing a special type of gown for inmates on suicide watch. Detective Bichel did not read Bonilla-Barraza his Miranda rights during the initial part of this interview. The following exchange occurred:

Detective Bichel: And like I said, you remember me from the other night when we spoke? And, um ... I respected you when you said you didn't want to talk to me. OK, so but on the same hand trying to treat you like a man, you know everyone .... Obviously my goal and my job is to find out what happened because I wasn't there.

Bonilla-Barraza (via interpreter): Yes, I understand.

Detective Bichel: And one of ... you know, obviously there are different ways we try to figure out what happened based on evidence, based on talking to the kids.

Bonilla-Barraza: Yeah.

Detective Bichel: But I would like to do [sic] is get from you what actually happened. That way maybe I can make sense out of this whole situation. Does that make sense to you?

Bonilla-Barraza: Yeah.

Detective Bichel: Would you like to tell me what happened?

Bonilla-Barraza: OK.

Detective Bichel then read Miranda warnings to Bonilla-Barraza. At this time, Bonilla-Barraza told Detective Bichel that some attorneys had come to the jail to speak with him the previous day, and that he had "told them [he] wanted to talk with them because [he] was ready to tell the truth." Bonilla-Barraza stated that the attorneys had told him they should be present during questioning. He further stated that the attorneys had "told him they could be here within five minutes if he wanted to call them," and that he was "scared" to answer Detective Bichel's questions. Detective Bichel responded, "If you want them here that's fine or if you are comfortable sitting here talking with us it is not—ultimately it is not going to make a huge difference other than help me understand." Bonilla-Barraza then stated that, because Detective Bichel had "treated him really well," Bonilla-Barraza would "treat [Detective Bichel] really well," and agreed to answer the questions.

After signing a written waiver of his Miranda rights, Bonilla-Barraza gave a statement in which he gave incriminating details about his role in the death of his fiancée. Because this confession was only audiotaped, Detective Bichel arranged for Bonilla-Barraza to be transported to the police operations center to give a videotaped interview. About an hour later, after receiving another Miranda advisement and signing a second Miranda waiver, Bonilla-Barraza gave a videotaped interview in which he again provided incriminating information.

On May 7, 2008, the prosecution charged Bonilla-Barraza with one count of first degree murder after deliberation (a class one felony under section 18-3-102(1)(a), C.R.S. (2008)); a crime of violence count (a sentence enhancer under section 18-1.3-406(2)(a)(I)(B), C.R.S. (2008)); and four counts of child abuse (a class two misdemeanor under section 18-6-401(1), (7)(b)(I), C.R.S. (2008)).

After a preliminary hearing, the court bound over the case on all charges. Bonilla-Barraza entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter was set for trial. He then filed a motion to suppress the statements he made while in police custody.

Following a hearing, the El Paso County District Court granted Bonilla-Barraza's suppression motion on December 19, 2008. The court held that, while Bonilla-Barraza's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated and his statements were voluntary, Bonilla-Barraza's Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to counsel during custodial interrogation were violated.

Upon the trial court's denial of the prosecution's motion for reconsideration, the prosecution filed this interlocutory appeal.

II.

We hold, under the totality of the circumstances, that the police violated Bonilla-Barraza's constitutional right to remain silent by continuing to conduct custodial interrogation of him on three occasions after he had clearly invoked that right. Consequently, the statements Bonilla-Barraza made in those interrogations are inadmissible in this case.

A. Standard of Review

In suppression cases, which typically involve a mixed question of fact and law, we defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent evidence in the record supports them, and we review the court's ultimate legal conclusion de novo. People v. Arroya, 988 P.2d 1124, 1129 (Colo.1999).

B. The Right to Remain Silent during Custodial Interrogation

Before conducting a custodial interrogation of a suspect, police must inform the suspect "that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); U.S. Const. amend. V. A suspect may cut off questioning at any time during a custodial interrogation by clearly articulating a wish to remain silent.4 Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1129-30; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The suspect must specifically waive the right to remain silent for police to proceed with a custodial interrogation. Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1129-30; see also Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602.

An interrogation is custodial when it is "initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • People v. Cardman
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2016
    ...the court's ultimate legal conclusion—its application of legal standards to the facts of the case, id. ; see also People v. Bonilla–Barraza , 209 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Colo. 2009). In this respect, whether the facts found by the trial court show a reinitiation by defendant of police discussions ......
  • People v. Wakefield, Court of Appeals No. 15CA0654
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 2018
    ...and whether in light of the interrogation environment the police compelled the incriminating statements. People v. Bonilla-Barraza , 209 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Colo. 2009). However, Miranda does not prohibit the use of a suspect's "volunteered, non-compelled statements." People v. Gonzales , 987 ......
  • People v. Alemayehu
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • May 20, 2021
    ...know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.") (footnotes omitted); accord People v. Bonilla-Barraza , 209 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Colo. 2009). Consequently, we limit our analysis to whether Alemayehu was in custody. ¶ 75 In the Miranda context, " ‘custody’ is a......
  • State v. O'Neal
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 2013
    ...(three factors)); see also, e.g., State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678, 811 N.W.2d 267, 282–83 (2012)(three factors); People v. Bonilla–Barraza, 209 P.3d 1090, 1095 (Colo.2009)(four factors); Carlisle v. Com., 316 S.W.3d 892, 896 (Ky.App.2010)(four factors). 10.See, e.g., Fleming v. Metrish, 556......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT