State v. Cruz-Mata

• Citation: 674 P.2d 1368,138 Ariz. 370
• Decision Date: 02 December 1983
• Docket Number: No. 5717,CRUZ-MATA,5717
• Parties: STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Luis, aka Bobby Eugene Saylor, Appellant.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona

Page 1368

674 P.2d 1368

138 Ariz. 370

STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Luis CRUZ-MATA, aka Bobby Eugene Saylor, Appellant.

No. 5717.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Dec. 2, 1983.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Crane McClennen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by H. Allen Gerhardt, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

HAYS, Justice.

Luis Cruz-Mata was tried and convicted of first degree felony murder (Count I), A.R.S. § 13-1105(A)(2) and armed robbery (Count II), A.R.S. § 13-1904. (Appellant was tried under the name of Bobby Saylor, but he admitted to the name of Luis Cruz-Mata at sentencing.) He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder charge and to 10 1/2 years on the robbery charge with 260 days credit for presentence custody on the robbery charge. The sentences are to run concurrently. We have jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5 and A.R.S. § 13-4031.

The record of this case reveals that on May 22, 1981 appellant was introduced to the victim, Alfred Romero, by his accomplices, Juan Montes (who is also known as "Malacho") and Antonio Sapien, while all four men were at the Tivoli bar in downtown Phoenix. Appellant was an acquaintance of Montes but had never seen Sapien before. Appellant testified that he knew that Montes stole cars.

As appellant was about to make arrangements for a taxi, he was told by Montes that Romero would drive appellant, Montes, and Sapien to their respective houses. The first stop, however, was the house of Montes' girlfriend, who refused to let anyone in the house. The men then drove to Once in the car again, Montes pulled a knife, which he had taken from Sapien's house. Appellant then grabbed Romero's arms while they were being tied. Montes then drove to the area of 48th Avenue and Elliott. Romero was taken out of the car and robbed.

Sapien's house. While there Sapien and Montes called appellant into the bathroom. They told appellant that they planned to rob Romero and steal his car. Appellant agreed to the plan.

Romero attempted to run away but was caught by Sapien. Sapien repeatedly stabbed Romero until his knife broke. Sapien then asked for Montes' knife and he continued to stab Romero.

Appellant helped Sapien move the body to a more concealed, nearby spot. Sapien then struck the body with rocks, and mutilated the body with a knife. The three men then drove away in Romero's car.

Appellant's defense at trial was that he did not plan the crimes and his participation was secured by duress. He testified that Sapien displayed a knife while he was in the bathroom with Sapien and Montes. No direct threats were made against him, but he testified that it was clear to him that he would be attacked if he refused to help. He testified that when Romero was taken out of the car he asked Sapien and Montes not to hurt Romero.

MIRANDA ISSUE

Appellant raises the question whether the detective investigating the matter failed to timely advise him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Detective Rufino Dominguez, who testified at the voluntariness hearing and trial, was in charge of the investigation concerning Romero's death. He went to the hotel where appellant worked in order to talk with him. He waited forty-five minutes for appellant to finish his shift. The detective asked appellant to accompany him to the police station for questioning. Appellant agreed. They travelled in an unmarked police car, which had a two-way radio as its only indicia of police ownership. Appellant was not searched, and the only time appellant saw the detective's gun was when the detective was locking it in his desk drawer. The interview began at approximately 4:40 p.m. and ended at 6:07 p.m. The two men were alone throughout the questioning, and it was conducted primarily in Spanish, appellant's native tongue.

The detective told appellant the following: a 1960 Ford Fairlane (Romero's car) had been in an accident and that Detective Dominguez suspected appellant's friend, Malacho, of the theft; appellant was seen in the car with other suspects; it was believed that appellant had talked about the homicide; appellant was seen with blood on his clothes on the night of the homicide; and Malacho had mentioned that "Chapparo" had been a participant in the crime. He also showed appellant a picture of a lineup that included Malacho.

The detective testified that appellant stated, "I ran over a dog and that's how I got blood on my clothes." Appellant later said that he was known as Chapparo. Finally, appellant said that he knew something about the murder. After this final comment the detective stopped appellant and administered Miranda warnings to appellant.

Appellant confessed to the crime. He claims that his confession was involuntary as it was the direct result of custodial interrogation for which he had not received his Miranda warnings.

While the interview amounted to interrogation, see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), it was not custodial interrogation. We find that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983), is applicable and controlling. The Court said:

Although the circumstances of each case must certainly influence a determination of whether a suspect is "in custody" for purposes of receiving of [sic] Miranda protection, the ultimate inquiry is Id. at ---- - ----, 103 S.Ct. at 3519-20.

simply whether there is a "formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement" of the degree associated with a formal arrest.

The Court stated that an individual is not in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings simply because the interview takes place in a police station, or the defendant is a suspect in the case. The Court also discussed Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977), and reiterated that in Mathiason "[t]he officer also falsely informed Mathiason that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime." Beheler, supra, 463 U.S. at ----, 103 S.Ct. at 3519. This indicates that confronting an accused with evidence of guilt does not necessarily require administering Miranda warnings. The Court also noted that any interview by the police of an individual suspected of a crime " 'will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause a suspect to be charged with a crime.' " Id., quoting Mathiason, supra. Thus, the focus is not whether a defendant felt he or she was in custody.

Because the circumstances of each case will influence a determination of whether an individual is "in custody" for purposes of administering Miranda warnings, objective indicia of custody must be considered. In State v. Kennedy, 116 Ariz. 566, 569, 570 P.2d 508, 511 (App.1977), the court of appeals listed four factors, three of which we approve, to consider in making the determination of whether an individual is in custody. These three factors are: the site of the questioning; whether objective indicia of arrest are present; and the length and form of the interrogation. We also will consider the method used to summon the individual. See United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir.1982).

Turning to the facts of the instant case, the site of the interview was a police station. Although a police station may be considered a "coercive environment," see Mathiason, supra, 429 U.S. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714, without more, the fact that questioning was conducted in a police station does not require that Miranda warnings be administered. See id. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714. After reviewing the record, we do not find that the site of this questioning significantly contributes to a finding that there was a restraint on appellant's freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.

We find that objective indicia of arrest are not present. Defendant was not subjected to the booking process, nor were physical restraints such as handcuffs used, nor was a weapon drawn. The total length of the interview (including pre-Miranda questions and post-Miranda questions) was about 1 1/2 hours. Detective Dominguez testified that no force, threats or other compulsion was used to obtain appellant's responses. Moreover, the interview was conducted in Spanish, except for the taped confession. Finally, appellant was asked by Detective Dominguez to accompany him to the police station and appellant rode in the front seat of an unmarked police car.

Based on these facts, we cannot say that the trial court's ruling constitutes clear and manifest error. See State v. Garrison, 120 Ariz. 255, 257, 585 P.2d 563, 565 (1978). We affirm the ruling of the trial court on the Miranda issue.

INTOXICATION INSTRUCTION

Appellant claims that the trial court erred by not giving, sua sponte, an instruction on intoxication which would allow the jury to find that appellant lacked the specific intent to rob. Alternatively, appellant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer did not ask for an intoxication instruction. Appellant now believes that intoxication was essentially his sole defense.

Before either of these issues need be addressed, the record must be found to support such an instruction. In other words, if the facts of the case do not support the giving of this instruction, it cannot have been error on the court's part to fail to give This court has stated that when an individual claims to have been intoxicated, but remembers the events during that time with great detail, this indicates that an intoxication instruction is unwarranted. See State v. Boyles, 112 Ariz. 63-64, 537 P.2d 933-34 (1975); State v. Kruchten, 101 Ariz. 186, 196, 417 P.2d 510, 520 (1966) (construing 17...