People v. Bryant, Court of Appeals No. 15CA0121
| Decision Date | 19 April 2018 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 15CA0121 |
| Citation | 428 P.3d 669 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Durron Larry BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Christine Brady, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Jeffrey Svehla, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB
¶ 1 Defendant, Durron Larry Bryant, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and two counts of third degree assault. We affirm.
¶ 2 According to the prosecution's evidence, in the late afternoon on April 4, 2014, a woman called the police because she had seen Bryant jumping up and down, cursing, and screaming near an intersection in Aurora. Officers arrived just after Bryant struck a male teenager in the back of the head and hit a female teenager on the side of her face. After arresting Bryant, officers interviewed eyewitnesses and conducted a field showup. The witnesses identified Bryant as the man who had been acting erratically and as the man involved in the altercation, and Officers Ortiz and Fink transported Bryant to the Aurora jail.
¶ 3 Shortly after arriving at the jail, and approximately one hour after Bryant was arrested, Officers Ortiz and Fink interviewed Bryant in the booking room. Officer Ortiz read Bryant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). He then asked Bryant if he understood his rights, and Bryant said that he did. Officer Ortiz asked Bryant if he would be willing to speak with police, and Bryant said that he was willing to do so.
¶ 4 During the interview, Officer Ortiz asked Bryant if he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and Bryant answered that he was. When Officer Ortiz asked Bryant what substance he was under the influence of, Bryant said that the substance was in his sock and pointed to his ankle, telling the officers that they could retrieve the substance. After the officers retrieved a small vial from Bryant's sock, Officer Ortiz asked Bryant what the substance was. Bryant responded that the substance was "sherm."
¶ 5 Officer Ortiz was not familiar with the term "sherm," but Officer Fink recognized it as a term meaning "PCP" or phencyclidine. Officer Fink asked Bryant several times during the interview if the substance was "PCP," and Bryant eventually responded that the substance was "PCP." At trial, Officers Ortiz and Fink testified to this exchange, and Officer Fink also testified that, based on his training and experience, he knew that "sherm" is a street slang word for "PCP."
¶ 6 Bryant was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance and two counts of third degree assault.
¶ 7 Before trial, Bryant submitted several motions to suppress, and the court held a two-day suppression hearing. As relevant here, Bryant contended that his statements to police were involuntary and that his Miranda waiver was invalid. Officers Ortiz and Fink both testified at the suppression hearing, as did the two teenagers who were assaulted and a witness to the assault. The trial court denied all of Bryant's motions to suppress, ruling that Bryant's statements were made voluntarily and that he had validly waived his Miranda rights.
¶ 8 A jury convicted Bryant as charged, and he now appeals.
¶ 9 Bryant contends that the trial court erred by ruling that his statements to the police were voluntary and that he had validly waived his Miranda rights. We are not persuaded.
¶ 10 The following facts were established at the suppression hearing through testimony from Officers Ortiz and Fink.
¶ 11 On the day of Bryant's arrest, Officers Ortiz and Fink were originally dispatched to Bryant's location to conduct a welfare check on a man who was acting erratically in the middle of the street and who was possibly under the influence of drugs. While Officers Ortiz and Fink were on the way to Bryant's location, however, they received a further dispatch that the same individual who had been acting erratically had possibly threatened and assaulted people at the scene.
¶ 12 Upon arriving at the scene, Officers Ortiz and Fink saw a man who matched the description given in the dispatch and who was later identified as Bryant. They proceeded to approach Bryant, and Officer Ortiz ordered Bryant to stop and speak with him. In response, Bryant looked at Officers Ortiz and Fink and then began to walk away. Officers Ortiz and Fink continued to approach Bryant, and Officer Ortiz ordered Bryant to stop, turn around, and interlock his fingers. Officer Ortiz gave Bryant several orders to do this, but Bryant did not comply. Instead, Bryant put his hands up and then down in response to Officer Ortiz's commands, and then he got down on the ground before standing back up. Finally, a third officer on the scene ordered Bryant to sit back down on the ground.
¶ 13 Officers Ortiz and Fink both testified that this was unusual behavior and that Bryant did not seem to understand Officer Ortiz's commands. After arresting Bryant, they proceeded to interview witnesses and conduct a field showup.
¶ 14 While Officers Ortiz and Fink were transporting Bryant to the Aurora jail, Bryant repeatedly asked why he had been arrested, and Officer Ortiz repeatedly explained to Bryant that he had assaulted someone. Officer Ortiz described Bryant as acting in disbelief each time he explained to him that he had assaulted someone. Officer Ortiz also testified that Bryant asked why he had been arrested approximately fifteen to twenty times, while Officer Fink estimated that Bryant asked this question approximately five times.
¶ 15 Officer Ortiz further testified that he believed Bryant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol because of his behavior; Officer Fink testified that Bryant seemed to be coming off of a high. Officers Ortiz and Fink both testified that Bryant's demeanor changed, however, by the time they arrived at the jail, and they both described him as being calm and cooperative at the jail.
¶ 16 Officers Ortiz and Fink brought Bryant to a booking room where Officer Ortiz read Bryant his Miranda rights from a pre-prepared card issued by the Aurora Police Department, and Bryant orally waived those rights. During the course of the interview, Bryant admitted that he was under the influence of drugs, revealed to Officers Ortiz and Fink that he had a small vial of drugs in his sock, and identified the vial as containing "sherm," which he later admitted during the interview meant "PCP." According to the officers' testimony, neither of them threatened or coerced Bryant in any way, nor did they use physical force on Bryant.
¶ 17 Bryant contends that his statements to the police at the jail were involuntary and should have been suppressed, arguing that the police exploited his intoxicated state during their interrogation to elicit incriminating responses. We disagree.
¶ 18 When a trial court rules on a motion to suppress, it engages in both factfinding and law application. People v. Platt , 81 P.3d 1060, 1065 (Colo. 2004). We will uphold a trial court's findings of fact on the voluntariness of a statement when the findings are supported by adequate evidence in the record, but we review de novo a trial court's ultimate determination of whether a statement was voluntary. Effland v. People , 240 P.3d 868, 878 (Colo. 2010).
¶ 19 When reviewing a trial court's suppression ruling, appellate courts must only consider evidence presented at the suppression hearing. Moody v. People , 159 P.3d 611, 614 (Colo. 2007). We consider the "interrelationship between the evidentiary facts of record, the findings of the trial court, and the applicable legal standards." People v. D.F. , 933 P.2d 9, 13 (Colo. 1997). We also examine a trial court's legal conclusions de novo under the totality of the circumstances. People v. Triplett , 2016 COA 87, ¶ 28, 411 P.3d 1054.
¶ 20 When a defendant seeks to suppress a confession or inculpatory statement, the prosecution must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession or statement was voluntary. People v. Gennings , 808 P.2d 839, 843 (Colo. 1991). Under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions, a defendant's statements must be made voluntarily in order to be admissible into evidence. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV ; Colo. Const. art. II, § 25 ; Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385, 397, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) ; People v. Raffaelli , 647 P.2d 230, 234 (Colo. 1982).
¶ 21 A statement is voluntary made if it is "not ‘extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight.’ " People v. Mounts , 784 P.2d 792, 796 (Colo. 1990) (quoting People v. Pineda , 182 Colo. 385, 387, 513 P.2d 452, 453 (1973) ). The statement must be the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by the maker. Id.
¶ 22 "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." People v. Valdez , 969 P.2d 208, 211 (Colo. 1998). "While a defendant's mental condition, by itself and apart from its relationship to official coercion, does not resolve the issue of constitutional voluntariness, the deliberate exploitation of a person's weakness by psychological intimidation can under some circumstances constitute a form of governmental coercion that renders a statement involuntary." Gennings , 808 P.2d at 844 (citation omitted).
¶ 23 "[I]ntoxication alone does not automatically render statements involuntary...." People v. Martin , 30 P.3d 758, 760 (Colo. App. 2000)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Alemayehu
...presented at the suppression hearing. Moody v. People , 159 P.3d 611, 614 (Colo. 2007) ; accord People v. Bryant , 2018 COA 53, ¶ 19, 428 P.3d 669. ¶ 24 The trial court's rulings present mixed questions of fact and law. People v. Gutierrez , 2020 CO 60, ¶ 11, 465 P.3d 577. Ordinarily, we de......
-
People v. Sellers
...incapable of understanding the nature of his or her rights and the ramifications of waiving them." People v. Bryant , 2018 COA 53, ¶ 38, 428 P.3d 669. Sellers self-reported that he used marijuana two hours before the interrogation and cocaine nearly five hours before the interrogation. Howe......
-
Duntsch v. State
...acts knowingly is a subjective inquiry. See, e.g. , ARCTEC Servs. v. Cummings , 295 P.3d 916, 923 (Alaska 2013) ; People v. Bryant , 428 P.3d 669, 685–86 (Colo. App. 2018) ; State v. Dixon , No. 82951, 2004 WL 1067527, at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. May 13, 2004) ; State v. Elliott , 104 Ohio App.3d ......
-
People v. Perez
...ruling, appellate courts must only consider evidence presented at the suppression hearing." People v. Bryant , 2018 COA 53, ¶ 19, 428 P.3d 669.B. Applicable Law ¶11 The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himse......