People v. Hammons, 86CA0164
| Decision Date | 29 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86CA0164,86CA0164 |
| Citation | 771 P.2d 1 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith HAMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. . VII |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Benjamin I. Sachs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Kane & Harrington, Mary A. Kane, Sp. Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Keith A. Hammons, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of assault in the first degree. We affirm.
Defendant maintains the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain statements made following his arrest. He alleges that the statements were involuntary and resulted from his hearing and speech impediments and his agitated emotional state, all of which made communication difficult. We disagree.
In determining the voluntariness of a statement, the trial court must examine the totality of the circumstances, including the atmosphere and events surrounding the statement, the defendant's conduct before and during the statement, and the defendant's mental condition at the time of the statement. People v. Smith, 716 P.2d 1115 (Colo.1986). Here, the trial court made extensive findings concerning the statement made in the police car following arrest, the statement made at the police station, and a statement made at a later time in the presence of a sign language interpreter.
The evidence reveals that the statements in the police car and at the police station were not made in response to interrogation by the arresting officers, but were in essence spontaneous, voluntary statements. Volunteered statements cannot be considered the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent. See People v. Trujillo, 710 P.2d 1169 (Colo.App.1985) and People v. Morgan, 681 P.2d 970 (Colo.App.1984). Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not voluntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. People v. Rhodes, 729 P.2d 982 (Colo.1986). We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress these statements.
Regarding the statement made in the presence of the interpreter, we conclude an appropriate waiver was executed by the defendant. See People v. Spring, 713 P.2d 865 (Colo.1985), rev'd, Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). Hence, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress this statement because it was made following a knowing waiver of the right against self-incrimination.
Defendant next maintains the trial court erred by failing to appoint a second interpreter, thereby denying the defendant's right to communicate with counsel. Defendant argues that the interpreter appointed by the court was occupied with interpreting the ongoing proceedings for the defendant and, therefore, was unable to interpret communications between defendant and counsel. We conclude defendant's assertion in this regard is without merit.
At the time of the charged offenses and at the time of defendant's trial, the defendant was entitled under § 13-90-201, C.R.S. to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.P. v. District Court In and For 2nd Judicial Dist. of Denver
...163, 168 (Colo.1990) (factoring in a continuance in finding no prejudice from delay of disclosure in a criminal case); People v. Hammons, 771 P.2d 1, 2 (Colo.App.1988) (postponing criminal trial mitigates prejudice of late disclosure); Danburg v. Realties, Inc., 677 P.2d 439, 442 (Colo.App.......
-
People v. Veloz, 95CA1740
...record amply supports the trial court's determination that the statements were spontaneously and voluntarily made. See People v. Hammons, 771 P.2d 1 (Colo.App.1988); People v. White, 632 P.2d 609 We also reject defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppr......
-
People v. Daniels, 95CA2073
...v. Ross, 821 P.2d 816 (Colo.1992). Volunteered statements are not considered to be the result of police interrogation. People v. Hammons, 771 P.2d 1 (Colo.App.1989). Here, following his arrest, defendant was read his advisements under Miranda v. Arizona, supra, in the police car and again a......
- Hammons v. People, 88SC620
-
ARTICLE 90 WITNESSES
...and his counsel because appointed interpreter was occupied with interpreting ongoing proceedings was without merit. People v. Hammons, 771 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1988), cert. denied, 785 P.2d 611 (Colo. 1990). Police officer's request for blood or breath testing for alcohol is not interrogation......