People v. Quezada, 86SA293

• Citation: 731 P.2d 730
• Decision Date: 26 January 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86SA293,86SA293
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Natalie QUEZADA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 730

731 P.2d 730

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Natalie QUEZADA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86SA293.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Jan. 26, 1987.

David J. Thomas, Dist. Atty., E. Ronald Beeks, Deputy Dist. Atty., Golden, for plaintiff-appellant.

James T. Steiert, Arvada, for defendant-appellee.

QUINN, Chief Justice.

In this interlocutory appeal, the People challenge an order suppressing a custodial statement by the defendant, Natalie Quezada, on the basis that the police did not "scrupulously honor" her right to cut off questioning after she had been advised of her Miranda ¹ rights and had invoked her right to remain silent. We reverse the order of suppression.

I.

On April 18, 1986, at about 12:15 p.m., a theft occurred at a jewelry store in Arvada, Colorado. The defendant and her boyfriend, David Baros, were identified as suspects. Shortly after 1:00 p.m. Arvada police officer Steven Purol went to their residence, was admitted by Baros's mother, placed the defendant under arrest, and advised her of her Miranda rights. The officer testified that the defendant told him that she understood her rights and did not want to talk about the incident, but she made no request to confer with an attorney. Officer Purol made no attempt to question the defendant thereafter.

The officer took the defendant to the Arvada police station. During the booking process it was discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant's failure to appear on a municipal ordinance violation for shoplifting. Officer Purol took the defendant to the Arvada municipal court, which was in the same building. After the defendant pled guilty to the shoplifting charge, the officer returned her to the booking area of the police station.

Detective Vonderohe testified at the suppression hearing that he contacted the defendant at approximately 1:40 p.m. and asked her if she would be willing to talk to him. Detective Vonderohe was unaware that Officer Purol had previously advised the defendant of her Miranda rights and that she had declined to discuss the case. According to the detective, the defendant agreed to talk to him and was taken upstairs to the interview room. The record discloses that at approximately 2:10 p.m. the detective advised the defendant orally and in writing of her rights as follows:

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to speak with an attorney and to have him present during questioning.

If you cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one for you free of charge.

You have the right to stop this interview at any time.

The defendant told the detective that she understood her rights and that she would discuss the theft with the detective. She then signed a written waiver of rights which stated: "I understand my rights as they have been explained to me. With these rights in mind, I am willing to answer questions at this time." She told the detective that she knew Baros was intending to steal jewelry when they entered the jewelry store and that her role was to distract the jeweler while Baros committed the theft.

The defendant also testified at the suppression hearing, but gave a different account of the events. She stated that Detective Vonderohe had initially asked her if she had anything to say and that she told him that she and Baros had gone to the jewelry store to get her watch fixed. The detective later approached her while she was in a holding cell and, according to the defendant, "told me if I didn't say what David already said, I'd be in bigger trouble, and that's when I got scared." She testified that she agreed to talk to the detective because she was upset about being pregnant, was concerned about her two-and-one-half year old daughter, and thought that if she made a statement she would be permitted to leave. It was her further testimony that she neither paid attention to nor understood her rights, that she felt intimidated and was crying during the interview, and that she had told Detective Vonderohe what she believed he wanted to hear so she could go home to her child.

The district court granted the defendant's motion to suppress her statement to Detective Vonderohe. The court expressly rejected as "incredible" the defendant's testimony about not understanding her Miranda rights and about being coerced or intimidated into making the statement. The court also found that the testimony of Officer Purol and Detective Vonderohe was "totally credible," and that when the detective interviewed the defendant he was unaware of her prior refusal to discuss the theft with Officer Purol. After concluding that the defendant's written waiver of her Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, the court, relying on Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975), ruled as follows:

The issue to me is not whether there was a knowing and intelligent waiver and is not whether the right to an attorney was invoked, the issue is whether the right exercised by this defendant to remain silent regarding this matter was or was not scrupulously honored. The fact that the detective didn't know that she had exercised that right is not the point.... I am going to grant the motion to suppress ... because, when the [Mosley] Court speaks of scrupulously respecting a right that a defendant exercises, it just seems to me that, even if innocently, the person is questioned ... on the same subject within an hour thereafter at the initiation of the police, I don't see how it can be said that the right which she exercised has been scrupulously honored.

* * *

* * *

[W]hile I find that the violation of that right was not deliberate, not in bad faith, and that there was, in fact, a knowing and intelligent waiver, I find that initiating questioning under these circumstances does not constitute scrupulously honoring a right which was invoked some 45 minutes before, and for that reason the motion to suppress will be granted.

The People argue that the trial court misapplied the Mosley rule to the facts of this case. We conclude that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the Mosley case. The trial court interpreted Mosley as a virtual per se prohibition of Detective Vonderohe's interrogation simply because that interrogation occurred within one hour of the defendant's initial invocation of her right of silence upon her arrest. Mosley, in our view, requires a consideration of the total circumstances of the case with a view to ultimately determining whether a suspect's right to cut off questioning was "scrupulously honored." Mosley emphasizes several factors which, although not intended to be exhaustive, should inform a court's ultimate determination of the suppression issue. When the rule of Mosley is applied to this case, we cannot reconcile the trial court's ultimate constitutional ruling with its evidentiary findings of fact. We accordingly reverse the order of suppression.

II.

In reaching a decision on a motion to suppress a custodial statement, a court must engage both in factfinding--a specific inquiry into the historical phenomena of the case--and law application, which involves the application of the controlling legal standard to the facts established by the evidence. See H. Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 Colum.L.Rev. 229, 235-36 (1985). A court's findings of historical fact are entitled to deference by a reviewing court and will not be overturned if supported by competent evidence in the record. See Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, ----, 106 S.Ct. 2440, 2451, 91 L.Ed.2d 110, 125 (1986); People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 236 (Colo.1982); People v. Pineda, 182 Colo. 385, 387, 513 P.2d 452, 453 (1973); People v. Medina, 180 Colo. 56, 58, 501 P.2d 1332 (1972). An ultimate conclusion of constitutional law that is inconsistent with or unsupported by evidentiary findings, however, is subject to correction by a reviewing court, as is a court's application of an erroneous legal standard to the facts of the case. People v. Pearson, 725 P.2d 782 (Colo.1986); People v. Chase, 719 P.2d 718 (Colo.1986); Huguley v. People, 195 Colo. 259, 577 P.2d 746 (1978). With these preliminary observations aside, we turn to the controlling legal standard applicable to this case.

III.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court promulgated a set of safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of persons subjected to custodial police interrogation. After prescribing certain warnings which the police must give before questioning begins, the Court stated: "Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease." 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. Miranda left open the question of what circumstances, if any, must be present before a resumption of questioning is permissible.

That question was addressed by the Court some nine years later in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). After noting that neither the above-quoted excerpt from Miranda nor any other passage from that opinion created "a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by the police officer on any subject, once the person in custody has indicated a desire to remain silent," the Court held that the admissibility of statements obtained after the suspect has invoked the right of silence depends on whether the suspect's "right to cut off questioning" was "scrupulously honored" by the police. Id. at 102-04, 96 S.Ct. at 325-27. In determining that Mosley's right to cut off questioning had been fully respected, the Court reviewed the totality of circumstances underlying Mosley's confession and attached significance to the following...