Skip to content
Name: In re Z.A.
Case #: D060033
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/26/2012
Summary

Minor’s statements are inadmissible where police resumed interrogation after the minor invoked her right to remain silent and did not obtain a renewed waiver. The female minor and her boyfriend were stopped at the San Ysidro border with Mexico when a drug detection dog alerted to their vehicle. Authorities discovered 36 pounds of marijuana in the car. During questioning by police the minor initially waived her Miranda rights but subsequently said she didn’t want to answer any more questions. (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) She then asked how long her boyfriend would be detained, whereupon police resumed the interrogation, eliciting incriminating statements. After denying a motion to suppress evidence, the juvenile court found several drug offense allegations to be true. On appeal the minor challenged the denial of her suppression motion. Reversed. The minor unambiguously invoked her right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation. Her statements were inadmissible under Miranda because police failed to scrupulously honor her invocation and to re-admonish her. (Michigan v. Mosley (1975) 423 U.S. 96.) The court rejected the People’s contention that the statements were admissible under Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, which held that a suspect may waive a previously invoked right to counsel under Miranda by reinitiating a conversation with police and again waiving the right to counsel. The minor’s inquiry regarding her boyfriend could not reasonably be deemed as inviting a conversation regarding the investigation. Even if so viewed, the minor did not waive her previously invoked rights, either expressly or impliedly. Under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, the error was prejudicial.

The evidence was sufficient to support the true findings. There was sufficient evidence the minor transported and possessed marijuana for sale on an aider and abettor theory. As to the evidence she knew there was marijuana in the car, her inadmissible statements must be considered in evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence claim. (People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 [in considering sufficiency claim, the reviewing court must consider all of the evidence presented at trial, including evidence that was improperly admitted].)