State v. Medrano, 19234

• Decision Date: 04 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 19234,19234
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ralph MEDRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 1364

844 P.2d 1364

123 Idaho 114

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ralph MEDRANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19234.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Dec. 4, 1992.

Petition for Review Denied Feb. 18, 1993.

Whittier, McDougall, Souza, Murray & Clark, Pocatello, for defendant-appellant. John C. Souza argued.

Larry J. EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Horton, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

SILAK, Judge.

Appellant, Ralph Medrano, was charged with and found guilty by a jury of first-degree kidnapping. I.C. § 18-4502. Medrano was sentenced to an indeterminate term of life, with a fixed term in prison of eighteen years. At trial the court denied a motion to suppress the testimony of law enforcement personnel on the grounds that the motion was untimely under I.C.R. 12(d). The court overruled Medrano's further objection that the testimony of the law enforcement personnel should be excluded because he was not given warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The court also denied a motion in limine asserted by Medrano to prevent the testimony of two young girls based on the reasoning that the testimony was relevant and the prejudice did not outweigh the probative value. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

On September 20, 1990, a fourteen-year-old girl was abducted while walking to school in Pocatello. Prior to being abducted the girl noticed a small brown car, operated by Medrano, pass by and honk at her. After the car drove by she was grabbed from behind and forced into the same car. Medrano then drove slowly down the street while forcing his hand past her elastic waistband and down her pants, touching her vagina. Subsequently he reached under her shirt and fondled her breasts before letting her out in the vicinity of her school. The girl reported the incident to school officials who in turn notified the police. During the investigation by the Pocatello Police Department it was discovered that two other girls identified Medrano as the person who had driven by and honked at each of them prior to the day when the victim in this case was abducted. On October 1, 1990, Detective Madden of the Pocatello Police Department went to Medrano's home and asked Medrano if he was willing to go to the police station for an interview. Medrano agreed after he was told that he was not under arrest. Detective Madden transported Medrano to the station; Medrano again was told that he was free to go at any time. During the course of the interview, Medrano admitted that he had offered two young girls rides to school and that he might have touched one of them as the girl got out of his car. However, Medrano denied any wrongdoing and knowledge of the girl that had been abducted in this case.

Medrano claims the following errors:

1. The trial court abused its discretion by ruling that his motion to suppress the investigating officer's testimony concerning admissions Medrano had made was untimely under I.C.R. 12(d).

2. The trial court erred by overruling his objection to the investigating officer's testimony on the grounds that he was not given Miranda warnings.

3. The trial court should have granted his motion in limine to prevent the two other girls from testifying because their testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial.

4. The trial court abused its discretion by not considering the goal of rehabilitation and all the facts when it sentenced him to a fixed term of eighteen years and an indeterminate term of life.

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Medrano argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing his motion to suppress because he had shown "good cause" for not filing the motion on time. Medrano does not dispute that the motion to suppress was filed untimely on the day of trial. Idaho Criminal Rule 12(d) gives the court discretion to allow an untimely motion if there is "good cause shown." However, a "court may not arbitrarily enlarge or shorten the filing requirements of the rule." State v. Alanis, 109 Idaho 884, 888, 712 P.2d 585, 589 (1985). The state objected to the motion claiming it was untimely. In response to the court's question as to why the motion was filed late, Medrano's counsel stated:

We did have the preliminary hearing. The specific statement as to Officer Shaw was just received by our office, the officer's statement itself. We were aware that he testified at the prelim, [sic] but his statement was just received in the last few days from the prosecuting attorney's office. But as far as a reason it wasn't filed earlier, I don't have any reason other than we just waited until closer to the time of trial to file it.

The court noted that the jury had already been sworn in and was waiting to try the case, that the preliminary hearing had been held two months earlier in November, 1990, and that the court had not been given a chance to research the issues surrounding the motion. Therefore, the court denied the motion, but stated it would allow Medrano to object and argue the constitutional challenges to the testimony during trial. Medrano has failed to present to this Court any additional reasons for the untimely motion, therefore we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to suppress the officer's testimony, particularly since he was later given the opportunity to argue for exclusion during trial.

MIRANDA WARNINGS

In resolving a question as to whether Miranda warnings apply, an appellate court will not reverse a trial court where there is substantial competent evidence to support the factual findings. State v. Kirkwood, 111 Idaho 623, 625, 726 P.2d 735, 737 (1986). However, the application of legal principles to the factual findings is subject to free review. State v. Hiassen, 110 Idaho 608, 611, 716 P.2d 1380, 1383 (Ct.App.1986).

Medrano argues that the district court erred by admitting statements he made to the investigating officer because he was not given Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are triggered by custodial interrogation. See State v. Ybarra, 102 Idaho 573, 576, 634 P.2d 435, 438 (1981). The United States Supreme Court equated custody with a person being "deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1629. This test has been refined to mean when a person's freedom of action is "curtailed to a 'degree associated with formal arrest.' " State v. Myers, 118 Idaho 608, 610, 798 P.2d 453, 455 (Ct.App.1990) (citing Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)). The Court, in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 713, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977), on similar facts as the present case, instructed that the "test is an objective one based on the surrounding circumstances." To determine if a suspect is in custody, this Court, subsequent to Mathiason, adopted the Supreme Court's test that "the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood his situation." Myers, 118 Idaho at 611, 798 P.2d at 456 (quoting Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 442, 104 S.Ct. at 3151).

Medrano argues that the circumstances surrounding his admissions during interrogation support a finding that a reasonable person would believe that he was in custody and therefore he should have been given Miranda warnings. The state argues that because the facts here are similar to those in Ybarra the district court did not need to look beyond the fact that Medrano was asked to go to the police station and agreed. The fact that Medrano went to the station voluntarily and the officer told him he was not under arrest and that he was free to go are not dispositive. We must review the "totality of all the circumstances" that are presented in the record. See Ybarra, 102 Idaho at 578, 634 P.2d at 440 (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1876, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)); see also WILLIAM E. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS §§ 27.3(a)-(c) (circumstances to be considered when determining whether a defendant is in custody are: location of interrogation, conduct of the officers, nature and manner of the questioning, time of interrogation, and other persons present).

Medrano argues that he was in custody based on the following facts: he was transported to the station by the police and had no independent transportation to leave if he had wanted; he was a suspect and the focus of the investigation; and the purpose of the interrogation was to elicit information upon which criminal charges could be based. These facts alone are also not dispositive. Although the court focused on the facts that Medrano had gone to the station voluntarily, was informed that he was not under arrest, and was free to leave, the court also explicitly based its decision on the whole record. The facts pointed to by both Medrano and the state are undisputed. The record indicates Medrano was interviewed by only one officer and he was allowed to leave after the interview without being arrested. The totality of the circumstances considered by the court indicate to this Court that Medrano was not in custody when he was interviewed by Detective Madden. Therefore, we affirm the court's decision to allow Detective Madden to testify as to what Medrano admitted during the interview.

PRIOR ACTS

Medrano argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to exclude testimony of two young girls concerning Medrano's activities while driving by them. The girls were allowed to testify that a man they identified as Medrano drove by each one while walking to school alone, honked, waved and turned his car around. Medrano claims that the court erred by allowing the testimony under the state's theory of a "common scheme or plan" pursuant to I.R.E. 404(b) because the testimony was irrelevant to any material issue and the prejudice of its admission substantially...