People v. Ferguson

Decision Date22 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09SA375.,09SA375.
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lance Eugene FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Pete Hautzinger, District Attorney, Twenty-First Judicial District, Christopher Nerbonne, Deputy District Attorney, Grand Junction, Colorado, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Eisner Law, David G. Eisner, Grand Junction, Colorado, Attorney for Defendant-Appellee.

Justice RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court.

In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1, we review a Mesa County District Court order suppressing evidence obtained from a police interrogation of the defendant-appellee Lance Ferguson. We find that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence because Ferguson made a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights prior to the interrogation. We therefore reverse the trial court's order.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On the night of November 12, 2008, an officer on patrol observed a white Isuzu driving with expired license tags. After the officer pulled over the vehicle, the driver, who was later identified as Ferguson, claimed that his name was Cody Newitt and that he lacked proof of insurance, registration, and a driver's license on his person. The officer checked the name Cody Newitt in his patrol car, and it came back without any record. When the officer attempted to arrest him, Ferguson resisted and fled the scene, losing the officer after a half-mile chase through the surrounding area.

The officer returned to the scene and, in an attempt to find identification, observed drug paraphernalia in plain view and a wallet with multiple credit cards in various names. Meanwhile, other officers found Ferguson hiding in the bushes in the area and brought him back to the scene. At this point, the officer confirmed that Ferguson was the driver and placed him under arrest.

At the booking area, the officer read Ferguson his Miranda rights, which Ferguson said he understood. Ferguson initially agreed to speak with the officer on a limited basis, but after the officer began the questioning by showing Ferguson a picture of the real Cody Newitt, Ferguson said he wished to consult an attorney. The officer escorted Ferguson back to his cell without further questioning. Shortly thereafter, staff at the jail informed the officer that Ferguson had requested the opportunity to speak to him. The trial court found on the record that Ferguson initiated this conversation entirely of his own volition. The officer briefly conversed with Ferguson, who admitted his true identity. No further questioning occurred.

Two days later, Investigator Mike Piechota and his partner initiated a formal interrogation of Ferguson while Ferguson was still in custody. Ferguson stated upon entering the interrogation room that "I don't know that now's a good time." He claimed to be having mental problems and that his mind was "shuttering" due in part to withdrawal from methamphetamine, which he had been using up until three days prior. He repeatedly asked for mental help, stating that he should be in an asylum and that he could not stay indoors in the jail because it was like a coffin. He also claimed that Investigator Piechota could get him to admit to anything and that "I don't understand anything right now." When asked if he could proceed with the questioning, Ferguson said, "there's a lot of static around but I'll try." Ferguson, however, was outwardly calm, collected, and rational, stating that "I want to talk to you" and "I want to be very cooperative." Nothing in his actions evinced any debilitating mental problem or confusion at the proceedings.

Most importantly, Ferguson stated at one point, "I do feel like maybe there needs to be a lawyer or my mother here or something." Investigator Piechota responded that it was entirely Ferguson's decision whether to proceed with the interrogation: "If you want to talk to us, that's on you. If you want to wait, that's also on you. But you need to tell me what you want to do." Ferguson clearly responded, "I want to talk to you; I do." Then, after some brief discussion of Ferguson's drug problems, Investigator Piechota commented to Ferguson that Ferguson seemed "pretty coherent" and seemed to be "understanding the questions," to which Ferguson agreed. Ferguson then asked if Investigator Piechota could get him some "mental health," and Investigator Piechota agreed to try before immediately beginning a detailed explanation of his Miranda rights. After asking Investigator Piechota not to "use" him, Ferguson signed a form listing his Miranda rights while Investigator Piechota again emphasized that Ferguson could stop the questioning at any time.

Ferguson's actions throughout the nearly two hours of questioning were somewhat nervous and jittery, but he appeared composed and in full control at all times. He answered questions calmly, rationally, and without ever losing his focus or train of thought, and he admitted his criminal acts prompting the current incarceration. He broke down at one point, confessing his wrongs and recognizing that he had let down everyone, especially his mother. He also stated that he would fear for his personal safety in jail because of what he had done. He repeatedly expressed regret for his actions, acknowledging his many prior felonies and stressing the theme that he needed professional help to end his drug addiction.

Prior to trial, Ferguson moved to suppress the evidence and statements, and the trial court held a hearing, heard from witnesses, and admitted the interrogation video into evidence. After reviewing Miranda law, the court wrote:

Here, the Court finds that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of showing that the defendant made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to waive his Miranda rights given the defendant's clearly expressed need for help with the mental health issues and that from the moment he sat down he began telling investigators of his impaired ability to understand what was taking place. The Court also finds that coercive governmental conduct played a significant role in inducing the defendant to make a statement. The Court therefore finds that the defendant did not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his rights pursuant to Miranda and orders the use of statements he made to investigators on November 14, 2008 suppressed.

The State brought this interlocutory appeal.

II. Analysis
A. The Standard of Review and Miranda Law

In a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court must find facts and apply the law. People v. Platt, 81 P.3d 1060, 1065 (Colo.2004); People v. Kaiser, 32 P.3d 480, 483 (Colo.2001); People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 844 (Colo.1991). We defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. Platt, 81 P.3d at 1065; Kaiser, 32 P.3d at 483. However, "whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard to the facts established by the record is a mixed question of fact and law we review de novo." Platt, 81 P.3d at 1065 ("A trial court may not reach legal conclusions that are not supported by the record."). Hence, we defer to the trial court's finding of facts in the record but review all legal conclusions de novo, including the application of legal factors to the facts of the case.

Prior to a custodial interrogation, the Fifth Amendment requires that the police give a Miranda advisement to inform the defendant of his constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). "Suspects can waive their rights upon receiving a proper Miranda advisement; however, in order to be valid, the waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent." Platt, 81 P.3d at 1065; Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. We have previously analyzed the validity of a waiver in two parts, asking first whether the waiver was voluntary and free of governmental coercion and second whether it was knowingly made with full awareness of the nature and consequences of the right. See Platt, 81 P.3d at 1065; People v. May, 859 P.2d 879, 882 (Colo.1993);1 People v. Hopkins, 774 P.2d 849, 851 (Colo.1989). The State has the burden to prove the validity of the defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986).

In this case, we agree with the trial court that Ferguson was in custody, so Miranda applies. We also agree with the trial court that, because Ferguson volitionally initiated conversation with the arresting officer after invoking his Miranda rights on the night of the arrest, he validly waived his rights. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ("An accused, ... having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police."); Maryland v. Shatzer, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 1219, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010) (endorsing and further defining the Edwards rule).2

With respect to Ferguson's statements to Investigator Piechota two days after the arrest, however, we reverse the trial court. We disagree with the trial court's ruling that "coercive government conduct played a significant role in inducing the defendant to make a statement," because the trial court provides no explanation of its reasoning and there are no examples in the record of coercive conduct. We also disagree with the trial court's ruling that, although Ferguson signed a printed form waiving his rights, the waiver was not knowing or intelligent because Ferguson was not mentally sound at the time. The trial court failed to engage in the proper totality of the circumstances analysis appropriate to the knowing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Cardman, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0202
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 2016
    ...analysis attempting to arbitrarily surmise whether the defendant perceived some form of coercive influence." People v. Ferguson , 227 P.3d 510, 513–14 (Colo. 2010). ¶ 68 "[W]hen a confession challenged as involuntary is sought to be used against a criminal defendant at his trial, he is enti......
  • People v. Cardman, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0202
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2017
    ...analysis attempting to arbitrarily surmise whether the defendant perceived some form of coercive influence." People v. Ferguson , 227 P.3d 510, 513-14 (Colo. 2010). ¶ 17 "[W]hen a confession challenged as involuntary is sought to be used against a criminal defendant at his trial, he is enti......
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • October 31, 2022
    ...¶ 14, 464 P.3d at 739, we review the court's legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error, see People v. Ferguson , 227 P.3d 510, 512-13 (Colo. 2010) ; In re Estate of Owens , 2017 COA 53, ¶ 39, 413 P.3d 255, 264. Under the clear error standard, a trial court's "factua......
  • People v. Carter, Court of Appeals No. 10CA1993
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • April 9, 2015
    ...We defer to the district court's findings of fact "unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record." People v. Ferguson, 227 P.3d 510, 512 (Colo.2010). But, we review the adequacy of the Miranda advisement de novo. See Aguilar–Ramos, 86 P.3d at 402 ; see also United States v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Vexed and Perplexed: Reviewing Mixed Questions of Law and Fact on Appeal
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 47-3, March 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...omitted). [33] See generally Wesley and Tennant, supra note 25 (citing cases). [34] State Farm, 396 P.3d at 654. [35] People v. Ferguson, 227 P.3d 510, 512–13 (Colo. 2010). [36] People v. Zadran, 314 P.3d 830, 834 (Colo. 2013). 37 State Farm, 396 P.3d at 654 (citing E-470 Pub. Highway Auth.......

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