State v. Trochez-Jimenez

• Decision Date: 08 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. 88577–0.,88577–0.
• Citation: 325 P.3d 175,180 Wash.2d 445
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Cesar E. TROCHEZ–JIMENEZ, Petitioner.

180 Wash.2d 445

325 P.3d 175

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Cesar E. TROCHEZ–JIMENEZ, Petitioner.

No. 88577–0.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

May 8, 2014.

Jennifer J. Sweigert, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Deborah A. Dwyer, Prosecuting Atty. King County, King Co. Pros. Ofc./ Appellate Unit, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

STEPHENS, J.

¶ 1 Petitioner Cesar Trochez–Jimenez appeals his conviction for murder in the second degree, arguing the statements he made during custodial interrogation should have been suppressed because they were taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); and Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). Together these cases hold that prior to custodial interrogation, a suspect must be informed of his right to remain silent and right to counsel and once the suspect invokes his right to counsel, no further interrogation about any offense by any authorities may be conducted until counsel is present or the suspect initiates communication. These cases, however, involved only domestic investigations regarding domestic crimes. At issue is whether the same rule applies when a suspect requests an attorney during an interrogation conducted outside the United States by foreign authorities regarding a foreign crime. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals said it does not. We agree and affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 This appeal arises from Cesar Trochez–Jimenez's conviction following a jury trial for the second degree murder of Mario Batiz–Castillo. Trochez–Jimenez does not dispute that he shot Batiz–Castillo, who at the time was having an affair with Trochez–Jimenez's then girl friend, now wife, Lesli Batiz. Rather, Trochez–Jimenez maintains he shot Batiz–Castillo out of self-defense.

¶ 3 After shooting Batiz–Castillo, Trochez–Jimenez fled to Canada, where he was apprehended by Canadian authorities for illegal entry into Canada. The arresting officer informed Trochez–Jimenez of his right, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to remain silent and to “ ‘retain and instruct counsel in private without delay.’ ” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Aug. 11–16, Oct. 1, 2010) at 55–57 (quoting State's Pretrial Ex. 5). The officer also informed him that he could have the assistance of a lawyer without charge. Id. at 57. Trochez–Jimenez responded that he wanted a lawyer, though it is unclear from the record whether he was ever able to consult with one. Id. at 71–73. Trochez–Jimenez maintains he was not.

¶ 4 During their investigation, Canadian authorities discovered that Trochez–Jimenez was a suspect in a homicide in Seattle, Washington, and notified the King County Sheriff's Office of his whereabouts. Two detectives from the King County Sheriff's Office traveled to Vancouver, B.C., to speak with Trochez–Jimenez. When they arrived at the Vancouver jail, Trochez–Jimenez was being questioned by Canadian authorities. By the time the King County detectives were able to speak to him, Trochez–Jimenez had been in custody for about six hours. The detectives were aware Trochez–Jimenez had been advised of his right to counsel under the Canadian charter but were unaware that he had requested counsel be provided. They informed Trochez–Jimenez of his Miranda rights, with the help of a Spanish-speaking Canadian police officer and using a standard King County form printed in Spanish, and likened his Miranda rights to those under the Canadian charter. VRP (Aug. 10, 2010) at 94–95; VRP (Aug. 11–16, Oct. 1, 2010) at 11–19, 33–34, 81; State's Pretrial Ex. 3; State's Ex. 43, at 2–4. When asked if he understood his right to an attorney, Trochez–Jimenez responded, “ ‘Okay,’ ” signed the written waiver form and agreed to talk to the detectives. VRP (Aug. 11–16, Oct. 1, 2010) at 90 (quoting State's Ex. 43, at 3). In his statement to the detectives, Trochez–Jimenez admitted shooting Batiz–Castillo because he was “furious.” State's Ex. 43, at 12–15, 29.

¶ 5 Before trial, Trochez–Jimenez moved to suppress his statement, claiming it was taken pursuant to a custodial interrogation after he had invoked his right to counsel, in violation of Edwards and its progeny. ¹ The trial court rejected this argument. The court found that Trochez–Jimenez's assertion of his right to counsel in the Canadian investigation was not an assertion of his Fifth Amendment ² right to counsel under Miranda: “Nothing about the Miranda decision or its progeny requires suppression, because the defendant asserted a different right under a different document to an officer of a different jurisdiction than the United States.” VRP (Oct. 19, 2010) at 97. The trial court additionally did not credit Trochez–Jimenez's claim that he had believed his request for counsel to the Canadian authorities applied to the King County investigation when he had been told specifically that he was under arrest for immigration violations, and it was “with regard to those issues that he was advised of his Charter rights and asserted his right to counsel.” Id. at 96–97. Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that an invocation of a right to counsel made to foreign officials based on a foreign legal source does not trigger the Edwards and Roberson rule to invalidate a subsequent waiver of Fifth Amendment rights. State v. Trochez–Jimenez, 173 Wash.App. 423, 434, 294 P.3d 783 (2013). We granted review. State v. Trochez–Jimenez, 177 Wash.2d 1019, 304 P.3d 115(2013).

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 The Fifth Amendment, which applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964), guarantees that “[n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. ³ The right to be free from compelled self-incrimination is also protected under the Washington State Constitution. Const. art. I, § 9. This court has interpreted the two provisions coextensively, State v. Easter, 130 Wash.2d 228, 235, 922 P.2d 1285 (1996), and Trochez–Jimenez has not argued that we should treat them differently in this case.

¶ 7 In Miranda, “[t]he [United States Supreme] Court observed that ‘incommunicado interrogation’ in an ‘unfamiliar,’ ‘police-dominated atmosphere,’ involves psychological pressures ‘which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.’ ” Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 103, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2010) (citation omitted) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 456–57, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602). It therefore “adopted a set of prophylactic measures to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right from the ‘inherently compelling pressures' of custodial interrogation.” Id. (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602). “To counteract the coercive pressure, Miranda announced that police officers must warn a suspect prior to questioning that he has a right to remain silent, and a right to the presence of an attorney. After the warnings are given, if the suspect indicates that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. Similarly, if the suspect states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.” Id. at 103–04 (citations omitted).

¶ 8 Following Miranda, the Court remained concerned that police might “take advantage of the mounting coercive pressures of ‘prolonged police custody,’ Roberson, 486 U.S. at 686, 108 S.Ct. 2093, by repeatedly attempting to question a suspect who previously requested counsel until the suspect is ‘badgered into submission,’ id., at 690, 108 S.Ct. 2093 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).” Shatzer, 559 U.S. at 105, 130 S.Ct. 1213. To foreclose the potential for abuse, the Edwards court held that “when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights. [He] is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” 451 U.S. at 484–85, 101 S.Ct. 1880. The Court subsequently clarified that the Edwards rule is neither offense specific nor agency specific. Roberson, 486 U.S. at 687–88, 108 S.Ct. 2093.

¶ 9 Trochez–Jimenez argues that just as this rule applies across American jurisdictions, offenses, and agencies, it applies when a person invokes a right to counsel under a foreign charter to foreign officials even in the absence of United States involvement in that investigation.⁴ No court has so held. Severalcourts, however, have held to the contrary and declined to infer an invocation of one's right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment from a request for counsel under foreign laws. See Holland v. Florida, 813 So.2d 1007, 1009–10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (holding a request for counsel under Canadian law is not an invocation of one's Fifth Amendment right to counsel under Miranda);United States v. Dock, 40 M.J. 112, 117–19 (C.M.A.1994) (holding Edwards is not applicable when a suspect invokes his right to counsel under German law); United States v. Coleman, 26 MJ. 451, 453 (C.M.A.1988) (same); United States v. Vidal, 23 MJ. 319, 320–23 (C.M.A.) (same), cert. denied,481 U.S. 1052, 107 S.Ct. 2187, 95 L.Ed.2d 843 (1987).

¶ 10 These cases are consistent with the settled principle that the Fifth Amendment right to counsel cannot be invoked anticipatorily before the Fifth Amendment attaches. See Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778, 797, 129 S.Ct. 2079, 173 L.Ed.2d 955 (2009); McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 182 n. 3, 111 S.Ct. 2204, ...