People v. Saldana

Decision Date12 January 2018
Docket NumberD071432
Citation19 Cal.App.5th 432,228 Cal.Rptr.3d 1
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel SALDANA, Defendant and Appellant.

Charles M. Sevilla, San Diego for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

NARES, J.

This Miranda1 case involves Manuel Saldana, a 58-year-old legal Mexican immigrant with a sixth grade education who, with no notable criminal history, was charged with committing lewd acts on three girls, G.H. (age 11), M.H. (age 8), and Y.H. (age 6) (collectively the children), who live in the trailer park where he resides.

From the outset, the veracity of the children's claims was open to question. Left mostly unsupervised, the eight year old and the 11 year old watched a daily television soap opera which frequently depicts adult themes. After watching, the girls acted out episodes themselves. The day before accusing Saldana of molesting them, they watched an episode involving child molestation.

In a police station interrogation—with no Miranda advisements—Saldana confessed to inadvertently touching G.H. and M.H. on the vagina, outside their clothes. The jury watched a video of his confession and during deliberations asked to watch it again. About two hours later, the jury found Saldana guilty of four counts of committing lewd acts, violating Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). The court sentenced Saldana to six years in prison.

Saldana raises numerous issues on appeal; however, the heart of this case is whether Saldana was subjected to a custodial interrogation—because if he was, the court erred in allowing the jury to hear Saldana's confession over his Miranda objection. Except for being captured red-handed, a confession is often the most incriminating and persuasive evidence of guilt—an "evidentiary bombshell" that frequently "shatters the defense." ( People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 497, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 853 P.2d 1037.)

In response to police request, Saldana voluntarily went to the station for questioning. He was not handcuffed and when questioning started the detective told Saldana he could leave when he wanted and would not be arrested—"right now." However, once the detective closed the door and began interrogating Saldana, the interrogation was persistent, confrontational, and accusatory.

For about 40 minutes, the detective utilized classic interrogation techniques designed to convey two things. The first is the interrogator's rock-solid belief the suspect is guilty and all denials will fail. " ‘Such tactics include making an accusation, overriding objections, and citing evidence, real or manufactured, to shift the suspect's mental state from confident to hopeless.’ " (See In re Elias V. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 568, 583, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 202 ( Elias V. ).) The second is to provide the suspect with moral justification and face-saving excuses for having committed the crime, a tactic that " ‘communicates by implication that leniency in punishment is forthcoming upon confession.’ " ( Ibid. )

Here, for example, the detective told Saldana, "It looks bad." "It looks very bad, Manuel." "I have information that that happened." "And part of what you're telling me, not only doesn't it coincide, but there are some things that don't coincide." "And what else, Manuel? What has happened in your house? That's what I want to know." "Look, Manuel, something happened." "Manuel? What did you do with them?" "What happened, Manuel?" "And I want to get to the truth. But right now, you're not telling me the whole truth." "Well, the truth, Manuel." "When her clothes come[ ] back from the laboratory, is it [sic ] going to come back with your DNA?"

Saldana denied such accusations more than 25 times, this being typical: "No, nothing, sir. Nothing. I mean, I haven't touched them. I haven't done anything to them. I don't have a reason to do, to do it."

The detective told Saldana, "[S]ometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes things happen." And "[m]aybe ... you went too far or something." Later, the detective suggested it was "a moment of weakness or a moment that perhaps the girls put themselves there? One sat next to you. And at that moment, you didn't think correctly." Again, Saldana denied these accusations stating, "No. Trying to do something, no .... No, sir."

But ultimately, Saldana confessed, stating he inadvertently touched M.H. and G.H. twice on the vagina, over their clothes. In response to the prosecutor's question, Saldana testified he believed he could not leave the police station unless he confessed:

"[H]e asked me many times and he don't believe me I don't [sic ] did it. And I don't [sic ] did it. [¶] And I was thinking, if I say that, he will not let me go home."

The power of these interrogation techniques to extract a confession is keenly described in Miranda . ( Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at pp. 445-455, 86 S.Ct. 1602.)

Since Miranda, the United States Supreme Court has expressed concern that such interrogation "can induce a frighteningly high percentage of people to confess to crimes they never committed." ( Corley v. United States (2009) 556 U.S. 303, 321, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443.) "Estimates of false confessions as the ... cause of error in wrongful conviction cases range from 14 to 25 percent." ( Elias V., supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 578, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 202.)

It is appropriate for police to use these interrogation techniques. However, when police create an atmosphere equivalent to that of formal arrest by questioning a suspect who is isolated behind closed doors in a police station interrogation room, by repeatedly confronting him with the evidence against him, repeatedly dismissing his denials, and telling him at the outset he is free to leave—when all the objective circumstances later are to the contrary— Miranda is triggered. The court prejudicially erred in receiving Saldana's confession into evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Saldana, Martha, Angelica, and Their Families

In 2015 Martha H. lived in a trailer park in National City, California, with her children D.H. (age 19), J.H. (age 21), and Erik (age 24).

Saldana legally entered the United States in 1980 and has five adult children. For the past 24 years he has worked installing drywall for the same employer. Saldana lives in a mobile home in the same park, and he and Martha have had a steady relationship for 14 years.

Angelica is Martha's sister-in-law, and for a period Angelica and her children also lived in the same trailer park. Angelica has five children, including G.H., M.H., and Y.H.

About eight years earlier, Angelica's husband moved to Tijuana. Subsequently, Angelica was evicted and she also moved to Tijuana. After Angelica's eviction, the children lived with Martha. The children missed their father. They seemed to need and seek a lot of attention.

B. Telenovelas

G.H. and M.H. spent a lot of time watching television, particularly telenovelas—Spanish language soap operas with adult themes such as drug use, child molestation, divorce, extramarital affairs, and sex. The shows depicted "a lot of mistreatment of families," including child molestation. G.H. and M.H. watched the telenovelas "pretty much" every day, "as soon as they got home from school." After watching, the girls acted out the episodes themselves. D.H. explained:

"Q Now, you said that they would act out the telenovelas?
"A Yes.
"Q In what way?
"A They would say, ‘Okay. You're this character. I'm this character.’ [¶] They will have their dolls and they carry them. [¶] And they would, like, fight—like, play fighting between them.
"Q So they would act out scenes of play fighting with their dolls?
"A Yeah. [¶] But they were—for example, once they were playing and then it was about one of them taking their husband away.
"Q Okay. So they were acting out like boyfriend/girlfriend—
"A Yeah.
"Q —mom and dad kinds of things?
"A Yes."

The children had grown up at the trailer park and had known Saldana their entire lives. They called him "Uncle." Occasionally after school, they would go to Saldana's trailer to play and to eat. Martha warned Saldana not to allow them there because the children were mischievous, would make a mess, and would grab whatever food they could find.

C. The Reported Incidents

On February 3, 2015, G.H. and M.H. were outside playing when D.H. "started to notice something weird." She asked the girls, "[W]hat's going on," and initially they said, "Oh, nothing." But later M.H. told D.H., "It's something about Tio [Uncle] Manuel."

D.H. replied, "Did you guys get in trouble? Did you guys break something? Did you guys—what did you guys do?" M.H. started crying and said Saldana had "touched her like—like her thigh" or leg. M.H. said it happened the day before, when she and G.H. were playing at Saldana's home. When D.H. asked M.H. if this had happened before, she said, "I don't know. I don't know."

D.H. asked G.H., "Do you know anything about this? Did it happen to you?" G.H. replied, "No, I don't know anything." Later G.H. told D.H. that the previous day she and M.H. had made a mess in Saldana's trailer by overflowing the toilet. G.H. told D.H., "I just don't want to get in trouble."

D.H. told Erik what M.H. reported. Erik telephoned Angelica at work and told her to come to Martha's trailer. When Angelica arrived, M.H. told her Saldana touched her leg and her "private parts" outside her clothes.2 G.H. also said Saldana touched her legs and her "private parts" on top of her clothes. M.H. said that when Saldana touched them, he was on the sofa and used a pillow so that if he was touching M.H. it would not be seen by G.H. and vice-versa.

Erik drove Angelica, G.H., and M.H. to the National City police station to make a report. There, Officer Gregory Gisi spoke...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Scarber v. Clark
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 6 Octubre 2022
    ...based on the filing of a new decision allegedly supporting his position (presumably People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 1), the fact he is raising constitutional claim, this court's authority to consider the issue based upon its importance and because it might be re......
  • People v. Scarber
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 13 Noviembre 2019
    ...by asserting there was no forfeiture based on the filing of a new decision allegedly supporting his position (presumably People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432), the fact he is raising a constitutional claim, this court's authority to consider the issue based upon its importance and be......
  • People v. Torres
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Julio 2018
    ...54, 64, 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 430 ; Aguilera , supra , 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1162, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 587.)In People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Saldana ) we recently concluded that Miranda warnings were required during a police station interrogation regarding alleged sexu......
  • People v. Billings
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 25 Octubre 2021
    ...and the lower court 61 should have granted his various motions to suppress. Appellant relies primarily on People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432 (Saldana) and People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162 (Torres) to establish error. In contrast, respondent asks us to strike this claim be......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Other pretrial motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...whether interrogation was custodial, as required for the obligation to administer Miranda warnings to attach. People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432. OTHER PRETRIAL MOTIONS 6-25 Other Pretrial Motions §6:32 People v. Bejasa (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 26, 35-36. (trial court’s finding of “n......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 Marzo 2022
    ...v. Salazar (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1031, §§5:53.5, 9:150 People v. Saldana (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 170, §7:20.1 People v. Saldana (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432, §6:32.1 People v. Salinas (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 958, §§9:26.1, 9:26.2 People v. Salinas-Jacobo (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 760, §9:93.3(a) People ......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...circumstances surrounding the interrogation. Howes, 565 U.S. at 509; Potter, 66 Cal.App.5th at 539; People v. Saldana (4th Dist.2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 432, 455; see In re I.F., 20 Cal.App.5th at 759; In re B.M. (2d Dist.2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1292, 1297, rev'd on other grounds, (2018) 6 Cal.5th......
  • Litigating miranda rights
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Confessions and other statements
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...States v. Mittel-Carey , 493 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Colonna , 511 F.3d 431(4th Cir. 2007). People v. Saldana , 19 Cal. App. 5th 432 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) is a particularly helpful case that analyzes these issues when the Reid technique is employed. Police questioned Saldan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT