People v. Mendoza-Rodriguez, MENDOZA-RODRIGUE

• Decision Date: 16 April 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89SA292,MENDOZA-RODRIGUE,D,89SA292
• Citation: 790 P.2d 810
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jesus Manuelefendant-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 810

790 P.2d 810

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jesus Manuel MENDOZA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89SA292.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

April 16, 1990.

G.F. Sandstrom, Dist. Atty., and Scott B. Epstein, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Pueblo, for plaintiff-appellant.

David F. Vela, State Public Defender, and Shannon Reed and Victor I. Reyes, Deputy State Public Defenders, Pueblo, for defendant-appellee.

Justice VOLLACK delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The People brought this interlocutory appeal pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1 ¹ to challenge the district court's order suppressing all statements made by defendant Jesus Manuel Mendoza-Rodriguez after he was taken into the custody of the Pueblo police. The district court held that the failure of the Pueblo police to issue a Miranda ² warning made their initial interrogation illegal, and that the subsequent issuance of the Miranda warning was insufficient to purge the taint of the initial illegal questioning. The district court suppressed all statements made by the defendant while he was in the custody of the Pueblo police. We reverse and remand the case to the trial court.

I.

On January 17, 1989, Pueblo Police Detective Daniel Snell investigated the death of Jose Candelaria. Candelaria's body had been discovered that morning in the alley behind a Pueblo bar named the Happy Inn. Detective Snell questioned an employee of the Happy Inn who had worked the previous evening. The employee told Snell that Candelaria and the defendant had been involved in an argument at the bar, and that they had left the bar together and walked down the alley behind the Happy Inn. Based on the employee's description of the events of the previous evening, and other information Snell obtained about the defendant, Snell and a fellow officer located the defendant, identified themselves as police officers, and asked to speak to him.

The defendant agreed to accompany the officers to the police station to discuss what had happened the previous night at the Happy Inn. The officers handcuffed the defendant and put him in the back of their patrol car. The officers took the defendant to an interview room at the police station and removed his handcuffs.

At the station Detective Snell began interrogating the defendant. During the entire interrogation Detective Snell and the defendant conversed in English. Detective Snell interrogated the defendant about his immigration status for about twenty minutes, and then asked the defendant about the events at the Happy Inn the night before. The defendant admitted that he had been at the Happy Inn but stated that nothing had happened, and that he had left the bar with two women to go to another tavern.

Detective Snell then advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. Detective Snell repeated a series of questions and warnings contained in an English Miranda advisement form. Pueblo Police Sergeant Max Atencio testified that while Detective Snell was warning the defendant of his rights in English, he provided the defendant with a copy of the Miranda advisement in Spanish. The defendant declined to initial each advisement, but he did sign the advisement form, and he indicated to Detective Snell that he understood his rights. After the officers advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, the defendant agreed to talk about the events at the Happy Inn the night before. During the interrogation the defendant submitted to a polygraph examination.

When the Pueblo police finished interrogating the defendant Detective Snell booked the defendant. When the defendant was booked Detective Snell noticed blood on the defendant's boot. The defendant consented to having Detective Snell take blood and hair samples at the booking. Detective Snell also took the defendant's clothes into evidence. On February 8, 1989, the defendant was charged with two counts of murder in the first degree. ³

The defendant filed a series of suppression motions related to his interrogation by the Pueblo police, including a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant to the polygraph examiner, and a motion to suppress statements made by the defendant to the Pueblo police, on the ground that the statements were obtained in violation of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 16, of the Colorado Constitution. The district court held a hearing on the motions at which the court heard testimony about the officers' interrogation of the defendant.

The district court issued an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the police investigation, the fact that the defendant had a motive and an opportunity to commit the crime, and that he was the last person seen with the deceased.

The district court found that "the Defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes when he was handcuffed, put in the police vehicle, and taken to the police station for questioning." The district court concluded that the defendant was in custody because the police handcuffed the defendant, and because the officers never told the defendant that he was free to leave, despite the defendant's repeated questions about whether he was being held for immigration proceedings. The court concluded that "a reasonable person in the position of the Defendant would not have believed himself free to leave after handcuffing."

The court concluded that the initial fifteen- to twenty-minute questioning of the defendant was "prior to proper Miranda advisement." ⁴ The court concluded that "[t]here was nothing about the advisement which was subsequently given which changed the causal link between the initial pre-Miranda interrogation and the interrogation after warnings were given." The district court reasoned that "[s]imply reading a Defendant his Miranda rights is not necessarily sufficient to purge the taint of the initial illegal questioning." The court concluded that "[a]ll statements of the Defendant made at the police station are suppressed for failure to properly warn the defendant of his rights pursuant to Miranda."

The district court addressed whether the statements made by the defendant subsequent to the Miranda advisement were voluntary. The district court found that the interview of the defendant was "relaxed and primarily friendly." The court found that "[n]o threats or promises were made," and that "the [defendant's] statements were a product of a rational intellect and free will." The district court concluded that "[t]he People have shown, by [a] preponderance of the evidence, that the statements of the Defendant after advisement were voluntary." The district court stated that the defendant's voluntary statements could be used for impeachment purposes if the defendant testified at trial in a manner inconsistent with those statements.

Finally, the district court concluded that the boots and clothing taken from the defendant were products of the lawful arrest, and not of the interrogation. The court concluded that the blood and hair samples were voluntarily given.

The district court issued an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress statements "for failure to advise the defendant of his rights pursuant to Miranda prior to commencing [the] interrogation." The court ordered the suppression of all statements made by the defendant after he was handcuffed and placed in the patrol car. The court further ordered that the statements made by the defendant after the Miranda advisement were admissible at trial for impeachment purposes.

The People appeal the district court's suppression order.

II.

The defendant contends that this court should dismiss the People's appeal because the statements are not a substantial part of the proof of the charges pending against the defendant. We disagree.

In an interlocutory appeal the People must certify to this court that the evidence suppressed by the trial court "is a substantial part of the proof of the charge pending against the defendant." C.A.R. 4.1. The People filed in this court a certification in proper form containing the necessary language required by C.A.R. 4.1.

Our independent review of the record provided on appeal convinces us that the statements suppressed by the trial court constitute a substantial part of the proof of the charges pending against the defendant. People v. District Court, 785 P.2d 141, 144 (Colo.1990).

III.

In this case we address the constitutional standards governing the admissibility of statements by criminal defendants who are subjected to custodial interrogation by the police before the police issue a Miranda warning. The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). We adopt the reasoning of Elstad and hold that a statement made by the defendant before the police administer a Miranda warning does not automatically render subsequent voluntary Mirandized statements by the defendant inadmissible.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, the United States Supreme Court held that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The Miranda Court held that before state authorities can engage in custodial interrogation of an individual, they must observe certain procedural safeguards. Id. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1629-30. The procedural safeguards identified by the Court included warnings about the right to counsel and the right to remain silent. Id. at 478-79, 86 S.Ct. at 1629-30.

In Oregon v. Elstad, the Court addressed the same issue we confront in this case: "[W]hether an initial failure of law enforcement officers to administer the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, ......