State v. Aguirre, No. 3340
| Docket Nº | No. 3340 |
| Citation | 579 P.2d 798, 91 N.M. 672, 1978 NMCA 29 |
| Case Date | March 14, 1978 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Page 798
v.
James Patrick AGUIRRE, Defendant-Appellant.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1978.
Writ of Certiorari Denied May 18, 1978.
Page 799
[91 N.M. 673] Theodore E. Lauer, Lauer & Lauer, Santa Fe, for appellant.
Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Robert G. Sloan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
WOOD, Chief Judge.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence; we granted an interlocutory appeal. The issue is the voluntariness of defendant's statement which amounts to a confession of larceny. The statement also implicates defendant in the related burglary charge, but in some respects is exculpatory of burglary. See State v. Rogers, 83 N.M. 676, 496 P.2d 169 (Ct.App.1972). We discuss: (1) the standard for determining voluntariness, and (2) the effect of a promise to not prosecute criminal charges which were separate from the charges in this case.
Standard for Determining Voluntariness
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) states that the ultimate test of voluntariness is whether the confession is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker. "In determining whether a defendant's will was overborne in a particular case, the Court has assessed the totality of all the surrounding circumstances both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation." Schneckloth lists some of the factors taken into account and states:
The significant fact about all of these decisions is that none of them turned on the presence or absence of a single controlling criterion; each reflected a careful scrutiny of all the surrounding circumstances.
Defendant does not claim the trial court used an incorrect standard in determining the question of voluntariness; his claim is that the trial court's application of the correct standard was improper under the evidence. This claim involves four items.
One item is defendant's age. He was eighteen at the time of the statement. Age is a factor to be considered. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,supra; State v. Benavidez, 87 N.M. 223, 531 P.2d 957 (Ct.App.1975). However, a person who has reached the age of eighteen is considered an adult for most purposes. Section 13-13-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, pt. 1).
Page 800
[91 N.M. 674] A second item is a statement made by Detective Lara to the defendant at the police station. The detective had asked defendant's father to bring defendant to the police station so the detective could talk to the defendant. According to defendant, Lara stated: " 'The only reason I brought you in, cause it would be easier that you tell us now, then to be going to court and having them find out.' " Adjurations to tell the truth are not a basis for ruling, as a matter of law, that a confession should be suppressed. State v. Wickman, 39 N.M. 198, 43 P.2d 933 (1935). Rather, such an adjuration is a factor to be considered; one aspect of the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Lindemuth, 56 N.M. 257, 243 P.2d 325 (1952).
The third item involves the deception employed by Detective Lara. The trial court charitably characterized Lara's testimony at the evidentiary hearing as confusing. We do not determine whether the confusion resulted from Lara misunderstanding the questions asked or from Lara deliberately evading a direct answer to the questions. Lara told defendant that an informer had stated that defendant "and some other guy, pulled the burglary", told defendant that Lara had worked with the informant twelve times and that the informant had never been wrong. Some of Lara's statements about the informant were false and the inference is that all of the statements were false. Lara justified the falsity as "a basis of interrogation methods that I used." Lara's deception was a factor to be considered; an aspect of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguilar v. State, No. 17057
...Mexico has adopted the "totality of the circumstances" test. State v. Tindle, 104 N.M. 195, 718 P.2d 705 (Ct.App.1986); State v. Aguirre, 91 N.M. 672, 579 P.2d 798 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 Although the court below announced the correct standard, the majority does n......
-
State v. Sanders, No. 25,569.
...of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exercise of any improper influence." 91 N.M. 672, 675, 579 P.2d 798, 801 (Ct.App.1978). Sanders contends that the language "however slight" means that the FBI's warning him about the threat on......
-
1998 -NMSC- 48, State v. Munoz, No. 24,015
...(Defendant was two months away from his nineteenth birthday) is considered an adult for most purposes, see State v. Aguirre, 91 N.M. 672, 673, 579 P.2d 798, 799 (Ct.App.1978), and Defendant had graduated from high school and was indeed planning to attend college. The additions and correctio......
-
Vigil v. Tweed, Civ. No. 18-829 SCY/JFR
...1274; State v. Gonzales, 1981-NMCA-131, 637 P.2d 1237; State v. Powell, 1981-NMCA-090, 632 P.2d 1207; State v. Aguirre, 1978-NMCA-029, 579 P.2d 798; State v. Duran, 1977-NMCA-087, 568 P.2d 267; State v. Galvan, 1977-NMCA-013, 560 P.2d 550; State v. Santillanes, 1976-NMCA-112, 557 P.2d 576; ......
-
Aguilar v. State, No. 17057
...Mexico has adopted the "totality of the circumstances" test. State v. Tindle, 104 N.M. 195, 718 P.2d 705 (Ct.App.1986); State v. Aguirre, 91 N.M. 672, 579 P.2d 798 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 Although the court below announced the correct standard, the majority does n......
-
State v. Sanders, No. 25,569.
...of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exercise of any improper influence." 91 N.M. 672, 675, 579 P.2d 798, 801 (Ct.App.1978). Sanders contends that the language "however slight" means that the FBI's warning him about the threat on......
-
1998 -NMSC- 48, State v. Munoz, No. 24,015
...(Defendant was two months away from his nineteenth birthday) is considered an adult for most purposes, see State v. Aguirre, 91 N.M. 672, 673, 579 P.2d 798, 799 (Ct.App.1978), and Defendant had graduated from high school and was indeed planning to attend college. The additions and correctio......
-
Vigil v. Tweed, Civ. No. 18-829 SCY/JFR
...1274; State v. Gonzales, 1981-NMCA-131, 637 P.2d 1237; State v. Powell, 1981-NMCA-090, 632 P.2d 1207; State v. Aguirre, 1978-NMCA-029, 579 P.2d 798; State v. Duran, 1977-NMCA-087, 568 P.2d 267; State v. Galvan, 1977-NMCA-013, 560 P.2d 550; State v. Santillanes, 1976-NMCA-112, 557 P.2d 576; ......