People v. Montano
| Decision Date | 09 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A045323,A045323 |
| Citation | 277 Cal.Rptr. 327,226 Cal.App.3d 914 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Hernandez MONTANO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Fern M. Laethem, State Public Defender, Philip M. Brooks, Deputy State Public Defender, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. Sugiyama, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Morris Beatus, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Following his arrest for murder, defendant Manuel Hernandez Montano 1 was subjected to lengthy interrogation by two members of the Concord Police Department. Although defendant was advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the officers had previously decided not to respect any attempt by defendant to invoke his right to remain silent. This stratagem succeeded; following numerous futile efforts at terminating the interrogation, defendant made an admission so damaging as to be tantamount to a confession. Defendant made a full confession to the murder at a second interrogation session conducted several hours later. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress remarks he made at the first interrogation session, but refused to exclude evidence of the confession. The issue of defendant's guilt was thereafter submitted to the trial court, which found him guilty of attempted rape (Pen.Code, §§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 664) and first degree murder with the special circumstance that the murder occurred during the commission of attempted rape (Pen.Code, §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(iii)). The court further found true allegations that each offense involved the personal use of a deadly weapon (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (b)), and that the attempted rape also involved the intentional infliction of great bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 12022.8). Defendant was thereupon sentenced to state prison for the term of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
On his appeal from the ensuing judgment of conviction defendant contends that (1) the interrogating officers persistent refusal to honor his invocation of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination during the first session was so egregious as to taint the subsequent confession and disqualify it for admission at the trial, and (2) there was insufficient evidence of attempted rape to sustain either his conviction on that count or the special circumstance finding. We find the first contention meritorious and sufficient to require reversal of the judgment. Defendant's second contention we find to be without merit.
The circumstances of the murder are admitted. Shortly after midnight on October 4, 1987, on a public street in Concord, an intoxicated defendant accosted a young woman as she returned to her grandmother's home. For reasons not entirely clear, defendant stabbed her on the sidewalk with a large fixed-blade knife. He then dragged her behind a divider hedge in a parking lot, leaving a 70-foot trail of blood behind him. Once behind the hedge, defendant began a stabbing frenzy. Alerted by a woman's scream and the reports of on-lookers, police converged on the scene. Behind Defendant, who was observed running from behind the hedge, was apprehended nearby. He was transported to the Concord Police Department. At 4:03 a.m., Officers Breuker and Kincannon began interrogating defendant. Officer Breuker did most of the questioning. The format was that Officer Breuker's questions in English were translated into Spanish by Officer Kincannon, who then translated defendant's answers into English for the record. A tape recording was made of the interrogation.
the hedge they found the perforated, semi-nude body of the young woman.
At the outset of the session defendant was advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Defendant agreed to talk with the officers. Officer Breuker began with some questions about defendant's background, eliciting the information that defendant had illegally entered the United States from Mexico eight months ago. During the course of the previous evening he had eaten nothing, but had consumed eight or nine beers.
Asked by Officer Breuker to "[e]xplain to me how you feel," defendant answered: Defendant acknowledged that he had a "quite serious" problem, and that that problem was why the police had stopped him. Defendant had never had "a problem like this before," and had never had problems with the police. After he got defendant to admit having carried a large knife that night, Officer Breuker asked: Defendant responded that "I feel bad answering the question." Officer Brueker stated: The following (with minor editorial changes) are excerpts of what occurred thereafter:
After Officer Breuker then left the room, Officer Kincannon and defendant continued in Spanish.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
53 Cal.3d 1179A, People v. Beardslee
...are all relevant." (Id. at pp. 603-604, 95 S.Ct. at pp. 2261-2262, citation and footnotes omitted; quoted in People v. Montano (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 914, 937-938, 277 Cal.Rptr. 327.) An analysis of the Brown factors (supra, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254) convinces us that defendant's Californ......
-
People v. Peevy
...28.) Although deliberate police misconduct of this nature may cross the line into coercion (see, e.g., People v. Montano (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 914, 935-936, 277 Cal.Rptr. 327; Cooper v. Dupnik (9th Cir.1992) 963 F.2d 1220, 1223-1231, 1237; see also Collazo v. Estelle (9th Cir.1991) 940 F.2d......
-
People v. Somersall
...[Citation.]" ( People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 659-660, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752 ; see also People v. Montana (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 914, 931, 277 Cal.Rptr. 327 [where evidence regarding interrogation is uncontroverted, appellate court conducts independent review of issue w......
-
People v. Neal
...be ignored. Put simply, defendant's situation "could only have increased his feelings of helplessness." (People v. Montano (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 914, 939, 277 Cal.Rptr. 327.) The third circumstance that additionally weighs heavily against the voluntariness of defendant's initiation of the s......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 176; People v. Kelly (1990) 51 Cal.3d 931, 953; see, e.g., People v.Montano (1st Dist.1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 914, 935 (use of D's Catholic faith and its focus on repentance, coupled with denial of his request to cease interrogation, resulted in supp......
-
Table of Cases null
...52 Cal. App. 4th 670, 52 Cal. App. 4th 1513H, 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 737 (6th Dist. 1997)—Ch. 3-B, §20.5.2; §21.4.4(5) People v. Montano, 226 Cal. App. 3d 914, 277 Cal. Rptr. 327 (1st Dist. 1991)—Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(c)[2] People v. Monterroso, 34 Cal. 4th 743, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 101 P.3d 956 (200......