State v. Alvidrez
| Decision Date | 20 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,522.,84,522. |
| Parties | STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. REYNALDO ALVIDREZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Virginia A. Girard-Brady, of Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Jae M. Lee, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and Carla J. Stovall, attorney general, was with her on the brief for appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is a direct appeal by Reynaldo Alvidrez from convictions of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary of a dwelling, and criminal damage to property. Alvidrez challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, admission of evidence that he "always carried a gun," and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the killing was premeditated.
The State's evidence centered on the eyewitness accounts of three individuals, Maria Rodriguez and Manuel and Juana Solorzanos. Each testified they saw Alvidrez shoot and kill Ralph Rodriguez. Maria identified Alvidrez, with whom she had had a relationship while separated from her husband, as approaching her residence with something in his hand during the early morning hours of February 22, 1999. He kicked in a wooden kitchen door, causing Maria to run to a daughter's room and crawl out of a window. She went upstairs to the home of her neighbors, the Solorzanos.
From there, with the three of them looking out a window, they saw Alvidrez go back to his car. Ralph Rodriguez, Maria's husband, drove into a nearby parking area and Alvidrez drove his car up to the side of Mr. Rodriguez' vehicle. Alvidrez waited while Mr. Rodriguez exited from the passenger side of the car and then put a gun to Mr. Rodriguez' head and shot him. Maria testified the lighting was good and she was absolutely certain that it was Alvidrez who killed her husband. She further testified that Alvidrez had previously threatened to kill her, her daughters, and her husband if she did not stay with him.
The testimony of the Solorzanos was identical to that of Maria. Both stated they saw Alvidrez leave the residence, get into his car, and pull his vehicle up next to Mr. Rodriguez' car, and that when Mr. Rodriguez exited the vehicle, Alvidrez shot him in the head.
The evidence supporting the eyewitness testimony was that Deputy Harper stopped Alvidrez the morning of the shooting near Jetmore after noticing blood on the driver's side door and a driver's side window broken out. K.B.I. tests revealed that the blood was not Alvidrez' but could have been Mr. Rodriguez'. A handgun was found in the area where Alvidrez had stopped. The fingerprint expert for the K.B.I. testified that the fingerprint found on the magazine of the handgun was that of Alvidrez. A fire mark and tool mark inspector for the K.B.I. testified that a bullet cartridge found at the scene was an exact match to the gun found. Further, it was testified that broken glass found at the crime scene matched that found in Alvidrez' car.
Alvidrez testified in his own behalf and contended that he had been accosted in Garden City by two men at gunpoint and forced to drive to Dodge City, where he was told to take them to Maria Rodriguez' house. He contended he drove in circles and when he stopped to get gas was able to attempt a call to the police from a pay phone. He contended the purpose of the call was to warn the police about what was going to happen. The two men said their desire to go to the Rodriguez residence had to do with drug transactions. Once there, Alvidrez claimed the two men forced him into the house and that after he saw Maria's daughters, the three of them left. When Mr. Rodriguez pulled up, the two of them ordered Alvidrez to kill Mr. Rodriguez. He refused, and one of the other men shot Mr. Rodriguez. He was ordered to drive away, and the men eventually got into another vehicle but followed him toward Jetmore.
The three eyewitnesses said there were no other individuals in the parking lot when Alvidrez shot and killed Mr. Rodriguez.
Alvidrez' first issue on appeal is his contention that his motion to suppress statements made during an interview with an investigating officer was erroneously denied.
Alvidrez was transported from Jetmore to Dodge City on the morning of his arrest where he was interviewed by Officer George. He contends statements made to Officer George while in custody and after he had invoked his right to remain silent were inadmissible due to no valid and voluntary waiver of his Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed.2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), rights. After a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress.
When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of a district court's decision " " State v. Toothman, 267 Kan. 412, 416, 985 P.2d 701 (1999) .
The testimony at the suppression hearing showed that after being given and having signed a Miranda rights form, Alvidrez stated he wished to remain silent. A preliminary breath test was requested and agreed to by Alvidrez, which showed no alcohol in his system. When the officer returned, he repeated several preliminary questions relating to employment records and physical characteristics, which were preparatory to holding Alvidrez in custody. Alvidrez, in response to a question of whether he wanted to talk with the officer, stated: "I'd rather talk to a lawyer." Alvidrez was asked if he knew why he had been arrested, and when he said he did not, he was told he was a suspect in a shooting.
A videotape had been running and was apparently shut off to allow Alvidrez to remove his clothes because when it resumed it showed him in a orange jumpsuit sitting in the corner. Officer George was removing a piece of paper from the floor and asked Alvidrez if he had glass in his hair. He then said to Alvidrez,
From that point on, Alvidrez recounted a story substantially identical to that which he gave at trial. Some questions were asked by the officer but only when the defendant made an ambiguous statement or left out details.
The record clearly shows there was no attempt to intimidate, no threats were made, no coercive statements were made, and the interviewer only attempted to determine names of individuals mentioned by Alvidrez and where they might be located. The trial court found that while Alvidrez appeared tired, he was allowed to leave the interview to go the restroom and there was nothing coercive about the interview. After reviewing the testimony and the interview as depicted in the videotape, the court found that the statements were not coerced or given involuntarily and that the police officers did not proceed improperly after Alvidrez had requested an opportunity to speak with an attorney.
The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, although alternative grounds subsequently exist to support its decision. The State did not present Alvidrez' statement or call Officer George to the stand in its case in chief. The precise story given to Officer George was substantially what Alvidrez testified to at the trial, and while he did place himself at the scene, he related a scenario which was exculpatory and blamed third parties for Mr. Rodriguez' death.
In this case, the statements only became a part of the record after Alvidrez testified. A copy of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huddleston
...evidence of an attempt to cover up a killing and destroy evidence can be used to infer premeditation. See State v. Alvidrez, 271 Kan. 143, 148–49, 20 P.3d 1264 (2001) (fleeing scene of shooting without seeking or rendering aid and lying in attempt to cover up killing could support finding o......
-
State v. Frantz
...seeing defendant chase victim across street). Witnesses also testified the shooter immediately left the scene. See State v. Alvidrez , 271 Kan. 143, 149, 20 P.3d 1264 (2001) (fleeing scene of shooting without calling for or rendering aid could support inference of premeditation). When Offic......
-
State v. Carter
..., 290 Kan. 339, 363, 228 P.3d 1027 (2010), and attempts to cover up the killing or to destroy evidence of it, see State v. Alvidrez , 271 Kan. 143, 148–49, 20 P.3d 1264 (2001) ; State v. White , 263 Kan. 283, 296, 950 P.2d 1316 (1997).Carter's behavior and statements after Cooper's death th......
-
State v. Moore
...determination concerning the suppression of evidence is a question of law over which we have unlimited review. State v. Alvidrez, 271 Kan. 143, 145, 20 P.3d 1264 (2001). Where the material facts necessary to resolve the suppression issue are not disputed, however, we possess unlimited revie......