State v. Trochez–Jimenez

• Decision Date: 11 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 67158–8–I.,67158–8–I.
• Citation: 294 P.3d 783
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Cesar E. TROCHEZ–JIMENEZ, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

294 P.3d 783

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Cesar E. TROCHEZ–JIMENEZ, Appellant.

No. 67158–8–I.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 1.

Feb. 11, 2013.

Jennifer Sweigert, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.

Deborah Dwyer, King County Pros. Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

APPELWICK, J.

¶ 1 Trochez–Jimenez seeks reversal of his conviction for second degree murder while armed with a firearm. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to King County detectives in Canada after waiving his Miranda¹ rights, when he had previously invoked his right to counsel under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.² We affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 This appeal arises from Cesar Trochez–Jimenez's conviction for second degree murder of Mario Batiz–Castillo. Batiz–Castillo was involved in a months-long affair with Trochez–Jimenez's then girlfriend, now wife, Lesli. Trochez–Jimenez does not dispute that he shot Batiz–Castillo. Rather, at trial, Trochez–Jimenez maintained that he shot Batiz–Castillo out of self-defense.

¶ 3 After shooting Batiz–Castillo, Trochez–Jimenez fled to Canada. Soon after, Vancouver Police Constable John Jeffrey arrested Trochez–Jimenez on suspicion of entering Canada illegally. Jeffrey advised Trochez–Jimenez of his right under the Canadian Charter to an attorney without charge and without delay.³ Trochez–Jimenez requested an attorney and was transported to the Vancouver jail. Jeffrey did not put Trochez–Jimenez in contact with an attorney at that time. He was unable to say whether Trochez–Jimenez was ever able to consult an attorney. Trochez–Jimenez later testified that he was never provided access to a Canadian attorney.

¶ 4 Upon booking, Jeffrey ran Trochez–Jimenez's name through the police database. He discovered that Trochez–Jimenez was a suspect in a Seattle homicide and called the King County Sheriff's Office. He also notified Canadian immigration that Trochez–Jimenez may have entered Canada illegally. Jeffrey had no further contact with Trochez–Jimenez and never questioned him about the murder. He only spoke with Trochez–Jimenez about his presence in Canada.

¶ 5 After Constable Jeffrey's phone call, King County Detectives Thien Do and Raphael Crenshaw drove to Vancouver to interview Trochez–Jimenez about the murder. They arrived late that evening and were told that Trochez–Jimenez was being interviewed by “Canadian Customs.” ⁴ Not until after midnight were the detectives allowed to interview Trochez–Jimenez, after he had already been in custody for six hours. Trochez–Jimenez's English is limited, so Constable Luis Ramirez helped translate for the King County detectives. Ramirez is a native Spanish speaker and often assists the Vancouver police with translating, though he is not certified as an interpreter.

¶ 6 Before the detectives interviewed Trochez–Jimenez, Ramirez read him his Miranda rights in Spanish from a standard King County form.⁵Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Trochez–Jimenez also read the Spanish-language form himself. He acknowledged his rights, signed the waiver portion, and agreed to talk with the detectives. Ramirez, Do, and Crenshaw all testified that Trochez–Jimenez appeared to understand his rights. When asked if he understood his right to have an attorney, Trochez–Jimenez responded, “Okay.” He never asserted his right to remain silent or requested a lawyer.

¶ 7 Trochez–Jimenez then confessed to shooting Batiz–Castillo. He explained that he never intended to shoot Batiz–Castillo, but wanted to intimidate him so he would leave Lesli alone. But, he admitted he was “furious” when he grabbed his gun in the moments before he confronted Batiz–Castillo. He added that, in the moment, he was “blinded.”

¶ 8 Trochez–Jimenez was charged with one count of first degree murder while armed with a firearm.⁶ Trochez–Jimenez moved to suppress his incriminating statements, alleging that the King County detectives failed to honor his request for counsel—both to Constable Jeffrey upon arrest and when he answered, “Okay” upon being read his Miranda rights. Trochez–Jimenez acknowledged that he was given the Miranda form, but testified that he did not read it, because of his nerves and poor reading skills. He also testified that his response, “Okay” meant he agreed to have an attorney. He said that he assumed he would have an attorney, because he requested one from the Canadian authorities.

¶ 9 The trial court denied his motion to suppress. The court found that Constable Ramirez was a credible witness and that he and Trochez–Jimenez were able to understand each other. Conversely, the court did not find Trochez–Jimenez to be a credible witness. The court explained that Trochez–Jimenez “testified that he did not understand his Miranda rights. This is not credible. The defendant lied during his testimony. Defendant is smart and more sophisticated than he portrays himself. He is also able to read better than he claims. Defendant clearly understood his Miranda rights.” The court found that Trochez–Jimenez was informed of his right to counsel more than once and declined to assert that right. At no time did Trochez–Jimenez request counsel in the presence of Detectives Do and Crenshaw, or even Constable Ramirez. The court concluded that Trochez–Jimenez was “fully and completely advised of all of his Miranda rights, that he understood those rights completely and that he made a knowing, intelligent[,] and voluntary waiver of his rights.” (Emphasis added.)

¶ 10 The court also concluded that invoking a right to counsel under the Canadian Charter does not amount to assertion of the right under the United States Constitution. The court explained that Trochez–Jimenez was told by Constable Jeffrey that he was under arrest for illegal immigration issues. It was “with regard to those issues that [Trochez–Jimenez] was advised of his Charter rights and asserted his right to counsel.” The court went on to say that “[n]othing 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.” (Emphasis added.)

¶ 11 The State introduced Trochez–Jimenez's statement that he was “furious” when he shot Batiz–Castillo to show the requisite mens rea to convict for murder and rebut his claim of self-defense. The jury acquitted Trochez–Jimenez of premeditated first degree murder, but found him guilty of second degree murder while armed with a firearm. Trochez–Jimenez requested a mitigated sentence of 146 months, arguing that the victim was “an initiator and a willing participant in this horrible incident.” Instead, the trial court believed that Trochez–Jimenez lied about being threatened and being in fear of the victim. The court also found that Trochez–Jimenez acted out of rage and jealousy, and showed no regret. As a result, the court sentenced him at the top of the standard range—294 months imprisonment. Trochez–Jimenez timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 Trochez–Jimenez argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress his confession to King County detectives. Specifically, he disputes the trial court's conclusion of law that his request for counsel from Canadian authorities did not constitute a request for counsel in the Seattle murder investigation. Because he was not provided counsel, Trochez–Jimenez argues, his subsequent waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We review de novo a trial court's conclusions of law at a suppression hearing. State v. Armenta, 134 Wash.2d 1, 9, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997).

¶ 13 The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination requires that custodial interrogation be preceded by advice to the accused that he has a right to remain silent and a right to counsel.⁷Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The accused may waive his Miranda rights, so long as the waiver is knowing and intelligent. Id. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602. If the accused invokes his right to counsel, interrogation must cease. Id. at 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Police may not then resume interrogation until an attorney is present or the accused initiates further communication. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484–85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). If officers continue interrogation after the accused invokes his right to counsel, all resulting statements must be suppressed. Id. at 486–87, 101 S.Ct. 1880.

¶ 14 As a threshold issue, Trochez–Jimenez asks us to presume that Miranda governs the admissibility of his statements, even though he is a non-citizen. The State points out that the United States Supreme Court has not yet definitively ruled on this issue. But, the State does not appear to contest the issue. Rather, the State concedes that some federal courts have held that Miranda procedures apply to United States officials' custodial interrogation of a foreign national in a foreign country. See, e.g., In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 177, 201 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Bin Laden, 132 F.Supp.2d 168, 187 (S.D.N.Y.2001). aff'd,552 F.3d 177 (2d Cir.2008). The State also cites federal cases where the parties did not dispute this issue, so the court did not consider it. See, e.g., United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 131 (2d Cir.2007); United States v. Hasan, 747 F.Supp.2d 642, 657 (E.D.Va.2010), aff'd United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir.2012). We do not consider this issue to be in dispute. We will therefore treat Miranda procedures as applicable to United States officials' custodial interrogation of a foreign national in a foreign country in relation to a crime alleged to have been committed in the United States.

¶ 15 In Edwards, the defendant invoked his right to counsel after being arrested and read his Miranda rights. 451 U.S. at 478–79, 101 S.Ct. 1880. Questioning ceased and Edwards...