Skip to content
Name: People v. Cooper
Case #: B286201
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/18/2019

Although in-custody suspect was not given Miranda warnings, suppression of her volunteered statements during field sobriety tests was not required; but Miranda warnings were required before suspect's response to Romberg test. Cooper crashed her vehicle into another at a high speed. When the police arrived 10 minutes later, Cooper's eyes were red and watery, she smelled like alcohol, her speech was slurred, she was stumbling, and she was unable to walk straight. She became upset, uncooperative, and began walking around. For safety reasons, an officer decided to take Cooper to the police station to conduct field sobriety tests. In the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Anthony
Case #: A139352
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/08/2019

Trial court erred under Miranda by admitting defendant's statements to police that were elicited after police assured him they would not ask questions about a particular crime but did so anyway. Anthony, accompanied by fellow gang members, committed a gang-related killing of a man walking on a Berkeley street. When pursued by police, Anthony led them on a high speed chase that ended in two collisions, killing a driver in another vehicle, as well as a pedestrian. While in custody in Berkeley, Anthony invoked his right to counsel but then, for unknown reasons, initiated contact with Oakland police, who wanted…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: D071011
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/05/2019

Trial court's failure to instruct the jury on second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter was not error because the evidence did not support these instructions. Johnson and Guthrie committed a "hit" on Canady in a barber shop, allegedly ordered by a drug kingpin named Grant. Johnson was convicted of first degree murder and a personal gun use enhancement was found true. Guthrie was also convicted of first degree murder and a serious felony prior was found true. A strike prior was found true as to each defendant. On appeal, Johnson challenged the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Orozco
Case #: B288942
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/28/2019

Invocation of the Miranda right to counsel does not preclude admission of a confession made to a person defendant is unaware is functioning as an agent of law enforcement. Orozco struck his daughter so hard that he killed her. Orozco voluntarily accompanied officers to the police station but maintained his innocence. Orozco invoked his Miranda right to counsel at least five times. Several hours later, officers allowed Orozco's girlfriend, the baby's mother, to meet with Orozco in an interview room, directing her to get a full explanation. Orozco admitted that he hit and killed their baby. This confession was played…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cisneros-Ramirez
Case #: G055409
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 11/26/2018

Defendant's waiver of his "right to appeal from [his] guilty plea" precludes appellate review of his motion to exclude statements on Miranda grounds. Defendant's pretrial motion to suppress his statements following his arrest as obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 was denied. He later pleaded guilty under a plea bargain, and signed and initialed a plea form stating: "I understand I have the right to appeal from decisions and orders of the Superior Court. I waive and give up my right to appeal from any and all decisions and orders made in my case,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Delgado
Case #: C082480
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/01/2018

In murder prosecution, trial court erred by not excluding defendant's un-Mirandized inculpatory statements, but the error was harmless because of defendant's voluntary post-Miranda confession. Delgado was found guilty of two counts of special circumstance murder after he confessed to shooting two people in the middle of a drug deal. On appeal, he argued his inculpatory statements to police should have been excluded because he was questioned in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1969) 396 U.S. 868, and his post-Miranda statements were tainted by the procedures employed by detectives. Held: Affirmed on this point. In Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S.…

View Full Summary
Name: Martinez v. Cate
Case #: 15-16433
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/11/2018

Petitioner was entitled to federal habeas relief because the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in concluding a detective honored the petitioner's request for counsel during a custodial interrogation. Martinez and a codefendant were arrested after the shooting death of a rival gang member. In the interview room, the detective read Martinez his Miranda rights and Martinez invoked his right to have an attorney present. The detective said he would be unable to contact his attorney at that time and, because Martinez wanted his attorney present, the detective said he had no other option but to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Torres
Case #: D072610
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/12/2018

Trial counsel's failure to seek suppression of defendant's un-Mirandized statements to police constituted prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), mandating reversal of defendant's conviction. A jury convicted Torres of committing lewd acts on a minor (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and found true that he engaged in substantial sexual conduct (Pen. Code, § 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). On appeal Torres argued the failure of his trial attorney to file a motion to suppress his un-Mirandized statements to police constituted prejudicial IAC. Held: Reversed. To establish a claim of IAC a defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below a…

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. Almeda
Case #: C077141
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/12/2017

Admission of cellmate's testimony relating defendant's incriminating statements did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the cellmate was not acting under the government's direction. Villa and Almeda were charged with first degree murder for shooting a man parked in the car next to them at a stoplight. While in custody awaiting trial, Villa discussed details of the crime with his cellmate, Rhodes, who in turn reached out to the district attorney to offer Villa's statements in exchange for leniency for his own sentence. Rhodes, his attorney, and the prosecutor signed an agreement stating that the prosecution would…

View Full Summary