State v. Santiago
| Decision Date | 13 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1200-CR,94-1200-CR |
| Citation | 556 N.W.2d 687,206 Wis.2d 3 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Carlos SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Thomas J. Balistreri, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Attorney General.
For the defendant-appellant-cross petitioner there were briefs and oral argument by Eduardo M. Borda, Milwaukee.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Santiago, 198 Wis.2d 82, 542 N.W.2d 466 (Ct.App.1995), reversing a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, John A. Franke and Lee E. Wells, Judges. 1 The defendant, Carlos Santiago, was convicted on entry of a guilty plea to the charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver contrary to Wis.Stat. §§ 161.14(4)(t) and 161.41(1m)(h) (1991-92). 2
The principal issue on review is whether the State, in proving the sufficiency of the Miranda warnings 3 and a knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights, must present evidence of the words spoken by a law enforcement officer advising a suspect of the Miranda rights in a language other than English and the translation of the words. Also at issue is the State's burden of persuasion.
At a pretrial hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements the defendant made to the police while in custody, the defendant was precluded from eliciting for the record the entire Spanish-language warnings or a translation of the Spanish words spoken by the officer giving the Miranda warnings. Hearing only the testimony of a law enforcement officer that he gave correct Miranda warnings to the defendant and evidence elicited by the defendant that the warnings given in Spanish may not have been sufficient, the circuit court held that the State had proven by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the defendant was adequately informed of his Miranda rights and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived those rights. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the statement; the defendant was convicted on his guilty plea.
The court of appeals reversed the conviction, concluding that without the Spanish words of the Miranda warnings in the record, there was not sufficient evidence for either the circuit court or the court of appeals to determine whether the police complied with the requirements of Miranda or whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. The court of appeals remanded the cause to the circuit court for further evidentiary hearings and to make specific findings relating to what the officer told the defendant, whether the Spanish-language Miranda warnings reasonably conveyed the Miranda rights, and whether the waiver was knowingly and intelligently given. The court of appeals further concluded that the burden of persuasion applied by the circuit court was correct.
We hold that the State is not required in every case to present evidence of the foreign-language words used by the law enforcement officer who gave the Miranda warnings to a suspect and the translation of those words. However, if, as in this case, the accused in a timely fashion puts the State on notice of the claim that he or she was not properly advised of or did not knowingly and intelligently waive the Miranda rights because of the foreign-language Miranda warnings given, the State must produce evidence of the sufficiency of the officer's foreign-language Miranda warnings beyond the officer's conclusory statement that the officer gave the proper Miranda warnings. The accused's notice to the State of a claim of insufficiency of the Miranda warnings in the foreign language or the invalidity of the waiver is timely if the claim is stated in a motion to suppress or the claim is raised during the State's initial presentation of evidence at a hearing. 4 In this case, the defendant put the State on notice during his cross-examination of the informing officer. An informing officer must, upon the accused's request, testify regarding the foreign-language Miranda warnings given to the accused and those foreign-language words must be preserved in the record. We further hold that the State must prove the sufficiency of the Miranda warnings and the knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Jones, 192 Wis.2d 78, 114a, 532 N.W.2d 79 (1995). 5
We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the record of the suppression hearing in this case provides an inadequate basis for any findings of the sufficiency of the Spanish-language Miranda warnings or the validity of the waiver. The officer did not testify with respect to the entire Spanish text of the Miranda warnings despite the defendant's request; no one translated the words of the informing officer from Spanish to English; and there was evidence that the warnings given in Spanish did not reasonably convey the Miranda rights to the defendant. 6 The State thus did not meet its burden of proof in this case.
Accordingly we affirm the reversal of the conviction and remand the matter to the circuit court, as did the court of appeals. Our directions on remand, however, differ from those of the court of appeals. Because the defendant is deceased, we remand to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the action. 7
For purposes of this review the facts are not in dispute. The defendant was arrested in January 1993 in a warrant-authorized entry of his residence. Narcotics officers detained five men in the apartment and confiscated approximately fifteen grams of marijuana. When it became clear that the defendant spoke almost no English, the arresting officer called for John Garcia, a Spanish-speaking police officer of Mexican-American descent, to come to the scene to communicate with the defendant. When a suspect cannot communicate in English, law enforcement officers should give the Miranda warnings in a language the suspect understands in order to ensure that the suspect comprehends the Miranda warnings and can knowingly and intelligently waive the Miranda rights. 8
At the suppression hearing Officer Garcia testified that although he neither reads nor writes Spanish, he is bilingual and had given Spanish-language Miranda rights more than one hundred times. According to Officer Garcia's testimony, he ordinarily carried a Spanish-language Miranda card but did not have one with him on the afternoon of the defendant's arrest. It was his usual practice to hand this card to Spanish-speaking suspects to aid in their comprehension of their rights.
Officer Garcia further testified that he first read the defendant the Miranda warnings from a printed English-language card and then translated each warning into Spanish "street language." Garcia testified that after he gave the defendant each of the Miranda warnings in both English and Spanish he asked the defendant whether he understood. According to Garcia, the defendant responded "yes" in English in answer to each statement, agreed to speak to the officers at the scene and admitted that the marijuana found in the residence was his.
When questioned about the substance of the warnings given to the defendant, Garcia reported that he had said "apuntar un abogado," intending to mean "appoint you a lawyer." The parties dispute whether Garcia's Spanish apprised the defendant that a lawyer would be appointed for him at no cost. 9
A second officer, a Spanish-speaker of Puerto Rican ethnicity, spoke to the defendant in Spanish at the police station after Officer Garcia and advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. According to this officer's testimony, "apuntar" means literally "to point to" someone and "un abogado" means "a lawyer." This officer further testified that the words "apuntar un abogado" might or might not mean the State would appoint counsel. He stated that the correct Spanish word for "appoint" is "otorgar," but that if the word "apuntar" were used in the context of a Miranda warning, he would have been able to discern what "apuntar un abogado" meant.
The defendant testified that Officer Garcia did not speak Spanish very well and that the defendant did not understand the phrase "apuntar un abogado."
The defendant moved to suppress his statements made prior to the second Miranda warnings. At the suppression hearing, defense counsel requested that Officer Garcia recite the Spanish words he used to give the Miranda warnings, that these words be placed in the record and that the court interpreter translate them into English for the record. As we explain below, the Miranda warnings in Spanish were not transcribed. The circuit court denied the defendant's request to place their translation in the record, reasoning that without the Spanish words in the record the interpreter's translation into English would become the "official" version of Garcia's words and would foreclose the State from challenging the accuracy of the translation. The circuit court was prepared to allow Officer Garcia to write the Spanish words for submission into evidence. Unfortunately, Garcia could not write Spanish. The circuit court also rejected the defense attorney's suggestion that the court interpreter transcribe Garcia's spoken Spanish into written form so that the parties could offer English translations. Instead, the circuit court admitted into evidence Garcia's Spanish-language Miranda card.
The circuit court found that Officer Garcia warned the defendant in substantially the words and terms set forth in the Spanish-language Miranda card, that the warnings were sufficient, and that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the Miranda rights when he gave incriminating statements to the police at the time of his arrest.
The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Armstrong
...the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived the constitutional rights protected by the Miranda warnings. See State v. Santiago, 206 Wis.2d 3, 12, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996); Mitchell, 167 Wis.2d at 696-97, 482 N.W.2d 364; Hernandez, 61 Wis.2d at 258, 212 N.W.2d 118. The State also bears the......
-
State v. Agnello
...under the preponderance standard. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); State v. Santiago, 206 Wis.2d 3, 29, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996). So too must the defendant bear the burden of proving a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment by......
-
State v. Hambly
...2830). 98. Id. at 794-95. 99. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). 100. State v. Santiago, 206 Wis.2d 3, 18-19, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996) (quoting Moran, 475 U.S. at 421, 106 S.Ct. 101. Turner, 136 Wis.2d at 348, 401 N.W.2d 827 (citing Edwards, 451 U.S. at......
-
State v. Piddington
...of his Miranda rights, the pertinent "inquiry is whether the warnings reasonably convey the Miranda rights." State v. Santiago, 206 Wis. 2d 3, 12 n.6, 556 N.W.2d 687 (1996) (citations omitted).9 Yet, even though there is a functional similarity between the implied consent and Miranda warnin......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...in a language that the suspect was proicient enough in to understand the concepts that are involved in Miranda . State v. Santiago , 556 N.W.2d 687 (Wis.1996). In State v. Hindsley , 614 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), the court held that a defendant, who only understood American Sign Langu......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...in a language that the suspect was proficient enough in to understand the concepts that are involved in Miranda . State v. Santiago , 556 N.W.2d 687 (Wis.1996). In State v. Hindsley , 614 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), the court held that a defendant, who only understood American Sign Lang......
-
Litigating miranda rights
...in a language that the suspect was proicient enough in to understand the concepts that are involved in Miranda . State v. Santiago , 556 N.W.2d 687 (Wis.1996). In State v. Hindsley , 614 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), the court held that a defendant, who only understood American Sign Langu......
-
Litigating Miranda Rights
...in a language that the suspect was proicient enough in to understand the concepts that are involved in Miranda . State v. Santiago , 556 N.W.2d 687 (Wis.1996). In State v. Hindsley , 614 N.W.2d 48 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000), the court held that a defendant, who only understood American Sign Langu......