People v. Garrison
| Decision Date | 20 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25130,25130 |
| Citation | 176 Colo. 516,491 P.2d 971 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Eugene GARRISON, also known as Larry E. Garrison, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Carl Parlapiano, Dist. Atty., Allan R. Cooter, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, J. E. Losavio, Jr., Asst. State Public Defender, Pueblo, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Larry Eugene Garrison is charged with violating C.R.S. 1963, 40--2--11, inflicting a bodily injury upon another by driving an automobile in a reckless, negligent and careless manner while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
On the evening of December 14, 1970, the defendant was involved in an accident while driving west on Eighth Street in Pueblo. The investigating police officer, White, found the defendant sitting behind the wheel of his car. White asked the defendant for his driver's license, which he produced. He inquired as to whether the defendant had any injuries other than a cut on his forehead to which he answered no. White then asked Garrison to sit in the police car. White asked the defendant if he had been driving, but the record does not disclose an answer to this question. The defendant was then asked if he had been drinking to which he answered no. White then decided to take the defendant to the county jail. While enroute, White asked the defendant if he wanted to submit to a blood alcohol test to which he replied in the negative. He also asked the defendant where he was going, to which the defendant replied that he thought he was going on 4th Street.
Upon arriving at the jail, Garrison was advised of his rights. The testimony is clear that the defendant apparently understood those rights; he said that he did not want an attorney, and signed the advisement form. White began to interrogate the defendant by asking him the questions on the physical coordination sobriety test form. The defendant was again asked where he was going and if he had been drinking. He again stated, 'Damn, I thought I was going down 4th Street,' and that he had not been drinking.
The defendant moved to suppress all of the statements made by him to the police. After a hearing, the trial judge suppressed those statements made by the defendant before he was given a Miranda warning and denied suppression of those statements made after the warning had been given. The defendant thereupon brought this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court's ruling. The People have not cross-appealed.
As error, the defendant urges that the second set of statements should have been suppressed because a causal connection existed between the two sets of statements. He argues that the effect of the earlier invalid interrogation had not been dissipated, since he had not been removed in time and place from his original surroundings, and that the psychological effect of his original admission had not been removed. The defendant also asserts that White was armed with his earlier admission when the second interrogation took place, and therefore, that the 'cat was out of the bag.'
We find no merit to defendant's contentions and therefore, affirm the ruling of the district court.
We had occasion to examine the arguments advanced and the cases cited by the defendant in the case of People v. Potter, Colo., 491 P.2d 974, announced contemporaneously with this opinion. We do not wish to prolong this opinion by repeating our discussion in Potter and, therefore, we adopt that discussion in this opinion.
The statement which the defendant primarily objects to is the one concerning his belief that he was on Fourth Street. It is asserted that since the defendant was under suspicion for driving under the influence, the fact that he thought he was on 4th Street, when in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Milhollin, 87SA353
...Rodriquez, 645 P.2d 857, 860 (Colo.App.1982) (citing Cummings v. Maryland, 27 Md.App. 361, 341 A.2d 294 (1975). See People v. Garrison, 176 Colo. 516, 491 P.2d 971 (1971). ("The first answer as to where the defendant was going was given during the investigatory stage of the process. When an......
-
State v. Baruso
...184 A.D.2d 707, 585 N.Y.S.2d 222, 223, review denied, 80 N.Y.2d 972, 591 N.Y.S.2d 142, 605 N.E.2d 878 (1992); People v. Garrison, 176 Colo. 516, 491 P.2d 971, 973 (1971). But see Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477, 86 S.Ct. at 1629 (privilege against self-incrimination protects the suspect against an......
-
People v. Thornton, 26422
...Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); People v. Spinuzzi, 184 Colo. 412, 520 P.2d 1043 (1974); People v. Garrison, 176 Colo. 516, 491 P.2d 971 (1971); Yerby v. People, 176 Colo. 115, 489 P.2d 1308 The evasive replies of the defendant to the officer's inquiries, couple......
-
People v. Mangum, 26803
...889 (1971). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated. People v. Garrison, 176 Colo. 516, 491 P.2d 971 (1971); People v. Potter, 176 Colo. 510, 491 P.2d 974 The other statements made by the defendant Frey prior to being given the ......