People v. Hiles
| Decision Date | 08 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24780,24780 |
| Citation | 474 P.2d 153,172 Colo. 463 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice L. HILES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Floyd Marks, Dist. Atty., Seventeenth Judicial District, Adams County, S. Morris Lubow, Deputy Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph R. Quinn, Asst. State Public Defender, Allan I. Lipson, Deputy State Public Defender in Charge, Brighton, Lawrence J. Schoenwald, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a decision of the district court of Adams County denying defendant Maurice L. Hiles' motion to suppress a statement made by him to interrogating officers following his arrest for the crime of indecent liberties.
Defendant contends that he did not knowingly or intelligently waive his right to counsel during the interrogation. Additionally, in a supplemental brief, defendant asserts, Inter alia, that he could not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his privilege against self-incrimination because he was not warned that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law. He further contends that he was never told, and did not understand, that an attorney would be appointed for him prior to questioning if he so desired.
A hearing was held in the trial court on the motion to suppress. The trial court, on conflicting evidence, found that defendant's waiver of counsel was freely and voluntarily given, and that the statement sought to be suppressed was voluntarily given. We agree.
Defendant was arrested on March 3, 1970, at approximately 4:15 p.m. He was taken to the Adams County jail where he was booked and processed until approximately 5 p.m., after which time he was questioned by one Earl Molden and also the chief investigator, Bert Johnson. They testified that the interrogation continued until 7:15 or 7:30, during which time the statement sought to be suppressed was given.
Defendant was employed as a foreman in a chemical plant and has the equivalent of a high school education. When taken into custody, witness Molden said, defendant indicated that he wished to speak to the investigators about the offenses charged. Molden testified that he then advised defendant of his constitutional rights by reading them from an instruction card. He then asked defendant if he understood his rights and if he wished to waive his right to have an attorney present. Molden stated that although defendant appeared to understand his rights he did not answer the question whether he wished to have an attorney present. According to Molden, Hiles ignored the question and proceeded to ask Molden about the case. Molden stated that he informed defendant of the charges against him and who had filed them, but he stated to defendant that he could not and would not further discuss the case unless defendant waived his right to have an attorney present. Thirty or forty minutes passed during which time defendant continued to indicate that he wished to talk about the case and the investigators continued to refuse to do so without defendant's acknowledgment that he understood his rights and wanted to waive them. Then defendant verbally agreed not to have an attorney present and to discuss the case.
Although the questioning took place during the dinner hour, the defendant was offered food and he refused it. He did request milk which was brought to him. Although the investigators were with the defendant for about two and a half hours, that time included several breaks during which time questioning was not conducted and more than an hour of that time was used by the defendant to make the written statement which is sought to be suppressed.
Before making his written statement defendant signed an advisement form acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights and that he waived them. Under each question on the printed form concerning his understanding of his rights defendant wrote 'yes' and he wrote 'yes' to the question pertaining to the waiver of an attorney being present during the answering of questions.
The statement consists of five signed pages with the questions written by Molden and each answer set out in the handwriting of the defendant.
Defendant's version of the interrogation conflicts with that of Molden. He testified that he was arrested at 2:30 p.m. and that interrogation was begun at 4 at the latest. He further testified that he was never told that a lawyer could be appointed for him during the questioning, though he told the investigators he could not afford a lawyer. Defendant stated that not knowing that he could have a lawyer and believing that the officers intended to keep questioning him until he made a confession, he decided to answer their questions. He stated that he kept telling the investigators that he did not want to make a statement, but that he finally agreed to write answers to written questions. He further testified that he never orally agreed to answer questions. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...rights in compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); People v. Hiles, 172 Colo. 463, 474 P.2d 153 (1970); Nez v. People, 167 Colo. 23, 445 P.2d 68 (1968). He was interrogated by the police and asked if he wanted to take a lie ......
-
People v. Gallegos, 24985
...are supported by the evidence. Defendant's argument is answered by Reed v. People, 171 Colo. 421, 467 P.2d 809. See also People v. Hiles, 172 Colo. 463, 474 P.2d 153; Billings v. People, 171 Colo. 236, 466 P.2d Judgment is affirmed. ...
- People v. Nelson
-
People v. Smith, 24514
...close their ears to information volunteered to them while they were properly attempting to comply with the Miranda guidelines. People v. Hiles, Colo.,474 P.2d 153; Ballay v. People, 160 Colo. 309, 419 P.2d Having characterized this case as being one where there was no 'custodial interrogati......