Skip to content
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: B291137
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/23/2019

Trial court properly admitted defendant's un-Mirandized statements to an undercover informant regarding a gang-related shooting that defendant made while in jail on an unrelated matter. Defendant, a gang member, shot and wounded a man. While he was in jail on an unrelated offense, police placed an informant in his cell. He made incriminating statements to the informant, which were recorded. No Miranda warning was given. The trial court denied defendant's motion to exclude his statements and the recording was played for the jury. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and other crimes. On appeal he argued admission of the recording…

View Full Summary
Name: In re I.F.
Case #: C080658
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/22/2018

Based on the totality of the circumstances, 12-year-old minor was in custody for purposes of Miranda during two pre-arrest interviews at district attorney's office and juvenile court erred by admitting his statements. I.F., then 12 years old, was charged by a juvenile delinquency petition with the murder of his 8-year-old sister. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition. I.F. appealed, arguing that the court erroneously admitted his pre-arrest statements in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 because the interviews constituted custodial interrogations and he was not given Miranda warnings. Held: Reversed. An officer…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jones
Case #: B263800
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 01/19/2017

Defendant was unable to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in jury selection even though prosecutor struck three African-American prospective jurors. Jones, a 17-year-old African-American, was tried as an adult for murder and attempted murder. During jury selection, the prosecutor struck three African-American jurors: one for serving on a hung jury and two others for lacking life experience because they were young, unmarried, and had no children. Jones made a motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, which the trial court denied, reasoning that Jones failed to…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Rosales-Aguilar
Case #: 14-50315
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 04/12/2016

Trial court did not err by allowing prosecution to impeach expert witness with defendant's voluntary but un-Mirandized statements to law enforcement. Rosales was charged with illegal reentry into the U.S. His defense was that he lacked the specific intent to be convicted of illegal reentry because his entered the U.S. accidentally while high on heroin and meth. He did not testify, but a psychiatrist, who he had retained as an expert, did. The psychiatrist relayed Rosales's drug explanation during trial. The government, in turn, impeached the expert with un-Mirandized statements Rosales made to border patrol officers wherein he admitted that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leon
Case #: F065532
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/13/2016

Defendant's un-Mirandized statement during jail classification interview that he was a gang member should have been suppressed under People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523. Leon, Centeno, Palofox, and Rivas, were charged with a number of offenses arising from a series of home invasion robberies that they allegedly committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Other alleged coconspirators were tried separately. To prove the gang allegations, the prosecution relied on statements that Centeno and his coconspirators gave during jail classification interviews admitting they were gang members. Centeno's counsel unsuccessfully objected to the admissibility of his jail classification interview…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Perez
Case #: D068690
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/08/2016

Confession was involuntary where officer told suspect "we are not gonna charge you with anything" if the he told the truth and suspect immediately confessed. Perez was a suspect in a robbery turned murder. When interrogated, Perez denied any knowledge of the murder until the detective told him that if he were to "tell the truth and be honest" then "we are not gonna charge you with anything." Immediately after the detective made these statements, Perez stated that he did have some information and admitted to being the getaway driver. He was charged with first degree special circumstance murder. Before…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Elias V.
Case #: A140263
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/09/2015

Coercive police techniques employed during interrogation of minor rendered his confession involuntary. Elias, a 13-year-old, was accused of molesting a young female neighbor (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). Prior to and at the time of the jurisdictional hearing, the defense moved to suppress statements Elias made to police, arguing that they were involuntary and inadmissible (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436). The motion was denied, and the allegations were sustained. Elias appealed. Held: Reversed. The use of an involuntary statement in a delinquency proceeding violates a minor's due process rights. The admissibility of a statement is judged on…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Preston
Case #: 11-10511
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/12/2014

Under the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's mental disabilities, his confession was involuntary and inadmissible. Preston was 18 years old with an IQ of 65. He lived on the Navajo Nation with his parents, attending special education classes until he dropped out of high school. Psychological exams reflected he had limited linguistic ability or comprehension. An eight-year-old neighbor reported Preston molested him; most of the allegations were not corroborated by physical evidence. He was charged in federal district court with a sexual offense. His motion to suppress statements he made to officers was denied and he was convicted. He…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Westmoreland
Case #: A127394
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 02/05/2013
Subsequent History: Review granted, depublished, and transferred.

Defendant's murder conviction reversed where his involuntary confession was obtained by police promises that he would not receive a life sentence for an unpremeditated murder during a "robbery gone wrong." Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary after he stabbed a victim to death during a robbery. One of his challenges on appeal was the admission of his confession after police repeatedly told him he would not serve a life sentence if he did not premeditate the murder, but committed it during a "robbery gone wrong." Held: Murder and robbery reversed. Appellant's confession was involuntary in violation…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas et al.
Case #: D057485
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/11/2012

Appellant, who was 15 years old at time of homicide offenses and sentenced to 196 years to life, is entitled to resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [183 L.Ed.2d 407, 132 S.Ct. 2455]. Appellant Satterwhite and his half-brother Thomas were convicted of various gang-related offenses with enhancements, including two special-circumstance first degree murders and three attempted premeditated murders. The court sentenced Satterwhite, who was 15 years old at the time of the offenses, to 196 years to life. In a petition for rehearing, Satterwhite argued that his sentence should be reversed and…

View Full Summary