State Of Minn. v. Chavarria-cruz
| Decision Date | 30 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-1036.,A08-1036. |
| Citation | 784 N.W.2d 355 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,v.José Miguel CHAVARRIA-CRUZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the State asserts that a suspect did not invoke the right to counsel during custodial interrogation because the suspect did not speak loudly enough to be heard, the applicable test is whether the suspect articulated his desires to have counsel present sufficiently clearly so that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.
2. A reasonable officer would have heard the defendant's request for a lawyer in this case, and the district court's error in admitting a confession that was obtained after the request had been made was not harmless.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, MN; and Melissa Sheridan, Assistant State Public Defender, Eagan, MN, for appellant.
José Miguel Chavarria-Cruz was convicted of second-degree intentional murder for the benefit of a gang. Chavarria-Cruz confessed to the crime during a custodial interrogation. At his trial, he argued that the confession was obtained in violation of his right to have an attorney present during questioning and moved to have the confession excluded from evidence. The district court denied the motion and admitted the confession, crediting the interrogating officer's testimony that he did not recall hearing Chavarria-Cruz's attempt to invoke his right to counsel. The court of appeals affirmed Chavarria-Cruz's conviction, and we granted his petition for further review. We reverse.
Before 1:00 a.m. on May 1, 2006, Carlos Hernandez Perez (Hernandez) died in the driveway of his Bloomington, Minnesota, home after sustaining four gunshot wounds. Hernandez was either a member or an associate of the Vatos Locos gang, which was engaged in an ongoing conflict with the Sureños 13 gang. The investigation of Hernandez's murder led police to suspect a group of five Sureños 13 members, including appellant, José Miguel Chavarria-Cruz, who was 16 years old at the time of Hernandez's murder.
On October 19, 2006, Chavarria-Cruz gave a statement to police in which he stated that he and his fellow Sureños 13 members went to Hernandez's house and stole drugs and shoes from Hernandez. After a struggle, Hernandez ran away and Chavarria-Cruz admitted shooting at Hernandez as he ran. Chavarria-Cruz said that he did not intend to kill Hernandez, and that he did not find out until the following day that the shots had hit and killed Hernandez.
The State charged Chavarria-Cruz by indictment in Hennepin County District Court with first-degree premeditated murder, under Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2008), and first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang, under the same statute together with Minn.Stat. § 609.229, subd. 2 (2008). Chavarria-Cruz pleaded not guilty, and he was tried before a jury.
At trial, the district court admitted Chavarria-Cruz's October 19 confession into evidence. The State presented extensive other testimony establishing generally that a group of five Sureños 13 gang members, including Chavarria-Cruz, went to Hernandez's house on the night of the murder, and at least one of the gang members committed the murder. That evidence included testimony from Hernandez's girlfriend, who heard the events of the murder over the telephone. She testified that she heard Hernandez and someone else struggling over a gun, she heard someone tell Hernandez that it was his night to die, and she heard a sound like something falling to the ground. Hernandez then told his girlfriend to call the police, but thereafter stopped responding to her questions.
Other than Chavarria-Cruz's confession, the only evidence at trial implicating him as the shooter came from Felipe Saldivar Alvillar (Saldivar). Saldivar testified pursuant to a plea agreement with the State.1 He said that he was with Chavarria-Cruz and three other men on the night of April 30 and past midnight into May 1. The group targeted Hernandez because of his affiliation with the Vatos Locos gang. Saldivar stated that Chavarria-Cruz and one other man, both carrying guns, got out of the car at Hernandez's home. Saldivar remained in the car, but heard gunshots. Chavarria-Cruz and the other man then ran back to the car, carrying a pair of shoes. Saldivar testified that he heard Chavarria-Cruz admit to shooting his gun, while the other man stated that the clip on his gun had fallen out. Relying on the consistent accounts of the night's events from Chavarria-Cruz's confession and Saldivar's testimony, together with police testimony that the six cartridges found at the scene likely came from only one weapon, the State argued that only one shooter performed the killing and that Chavarria-Cruz was the shooter. Chavarria-Cruz did not testify or present any direct evidence.
The jury acquitted Chavarria-Cruz of the first-degree murder charges, but found him guilty of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree intentional murder for the benefit of a gang under Minn.Stat. §§ 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2008), 609.229, subd. 2, second-degree intentional murder under Minn.Stat. §§ 609.19, subd. 1(1), second-degree unintentional murder for the benefit of a gang under Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1) (2008), 609.229, subd. 2, and second-degree unintentional murder under Minn.Stat. § 609.19, subd. 2(1). The court convicted Chavarria-Cruz of second-degree intentional murder for the benefit of a gang, and sentenced him to 350 months in prison.
Before trial, Chavarria-Cruz moved to have his confession suppressed on the ground that it was obtained in violation of his constitutional right to have counsel present during an interrogation. Chavarria-Cruz argued that he invoked that right by requesting an attorney during a September 13, 2006, interrogation and that the police failed to honor Chavarria-Cruz's rights by ceasing to interrogate him from that point until an attorney was present.
The September 13 interrogation was conducted by the lead investigator on the case, Detective Edward Hanson. After a few introductory questions, Hanson informed Chavarria-Cruz of his constitutional rights. Hanson then proceeded to question Chavarria-Cruz, who denied any involvement in the crime. After about 30 minutes, Chavarria-Cruz made the statement that he later argued invoked his right to have counsel present during any further questioning. The State's written transcript represents the exchange as follows:
Hanson: Yes.
Chavarria-Cruz: Oh.
A review of the tape recording reveals that Chavarria-Cruz actually said something closer to, “I'm cooperating here, if I could just be like, you know, get me a lawyer.”
The interview continued for approximately 20 minutes longer, and Chavarria-Cruz continued to deny any involvement in Hernandez's killing. No lawyer was provided for Chavarria-Cruz, who remained in custody following the September 13 interrogation. Hanson questioned Chavarria-Cruz again on October 19, and, during this interview, Chavarria-Cruz confessed that he shot Hernandez.
At a hearing on Chavarria-Cruz's motion to suppress the confession, Hanson described his memory of the September 13 interrogation. He stated that he and Chavarria-Cruz were seated “almost kiddie corner” from each other at opposite ends of the table. Chavarria-Cruz did not face Hanson directly most of the time, and looked away or down for much of the interview. Hanson further stated that Chavarria-Cruz was “very soft spoken,” and had a “pronounced” accent. Hanson testified that he did not recall Chavarria-Cruz using the word “lawyer” during the course of the interview. Upon review of the tape recording, however, Hanson conceded that there was “no doubt” that Chavarria-Cruz mentioned a lawyer, although the words preceding “lawyer” are difficult to discern.
The district court denied Chavarria-Cruz's motion to suppress the confession. The court of appeals affirmed Chavarria-Cruz's conviction State v. Chavarria-Cruz, 771 N.W.2d 883, 885 (Minn.App.2009), and Chavarria-Cruz then filed a petition for further review in this court. We granted his petition to address the question of whether the district court erred when it denied Chavarria-Cruz's motion to suppress the statements he made after requesting an attorney.
Both the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution provide that “No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....” The United States Supreme Court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ezeka, A18-0828
...admitted at trial, it constitutes harmful error because of the "powerful evidentiary value" of the confession. State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355, 365 (Minn. 2010). For example, in Chavarria-Cruz , the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder; he appealed the verdict, arguing t......
-
Rasmussen v. Two Harbors Fish Co., A11–2178.
...that de novo standard of review should apply to reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations); see also State v. Chavarria–Cruz, 784 N.W.2d 355, 363 (Minn.2010) (stating that our court reviews “fact-intensive, mixed questions of constitutional law” de novo (citation omitted) (inte......
-
State v. O'Neill
...843 (Minn. 2011) (recognizing that factual findings regarding motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error); State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355, 363 (Minn. 2010) (same). And more specifically, although "competency" falls under a variety of definitions depending on context, appellat......
-
State v. Lugo, A15–1432.
...defer to district courts on constitutional issues “such as probable-cause and reasonable-suspicion determinations.” State v. Chavarria–Cruz, 784 N.W.2d 355, 364 (Minn.2010). “[T]he legal rules for probable cause and reasonable suspicion acquire content only through application. Independent ......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...that the defendant actually said, “I’m cooperating here, if I could just be like, you know, get me a lawyer.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355,360 (Minn.2010) and suppressed the statement. In U.S. v. McCarthy , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim that an......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...that the defendant actually said, “I’m cooperating here, if I could just be like, you know, get me a lawyer.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355,360 (Minn.2010) and suppressed the statement. In U.S. v. McCarthy , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim that an......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...that the defendant actually said, “I’m cooperating here, if I could just be like, you know, get me a lawyer.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355,360 (Minn.2010) and suppressed the statement. In U.S. v. McCarthy , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim that an......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...that the defendant actually said, “I’m cooperating here, if I could just be like, you know, get me a lawyer.” State v. Chavarria-Cruz , 784 N.W.2d 355,360 (Minn.2010) and suppressed the statement. In U.S. v. McCarthy , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12309, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim that an......