Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Suppress

7/27/2019 Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Suppress

1/6

STATE OF NEW MEXICOCOUNTY OF SAN JUANELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,Plaintiff,v.

DONOVAN KING,Defendant.

i,I*:"- i'-'^- ""-e,.l'::l lfi. lilIj'l;,'qir ;lil;iJ if',: rr

!. l r Ii, l*r LJ' t-,._. I ;

No. D-l 1 16-CR 201 100510-4

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESSTHIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion To Suppress

Coerced Statements Involuntarily Macle to Detective Paul Martinez filed herein on October21,2011. The Defendant was interviewed by Detective Paul Martinez at the FarmingtonPolice Department on May 29,2011 commencing at about 3:00 p.m. An audio-visual recordof the interview was made on a digital video disc ("DVD"). The parties have stipulated toa transcript of the audio portion of the record, the relevant portion of which is attachedhereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein. Statement numbers have been added to thetranscript and a notation indicating the point at which the Defendant can be seen on theDVD signing the waiver of rights fbrm.

The Court, having considered the written and oral argument of counsel, having heardtestimony at a hearing convened on December 8,2011 and having reviewed the DVDrecording now makes the following Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law and Order.

W&ffi


2/6

FINDINGS OF FACT1. At the time of the interview that is the subject of the motion, the Defendant was

in custody for Miranda ptxposes and was under interrogation by the Detective.2. At the outset of the interrogation when the Detective explained the Defendant's

Miranda rights, the Defendant appears on the DVD to be physically affected by the alcoholand marijuana he testified to having consumed during the hours prior to the custodialinterrogation. However, it is clear that the Defendant's mentation was rational and lucid.He was able to readily recite his date of birth, age, post office box and physical address. Hisremarks and questions were logical and appropriate to the situation.

3. The DVD and Appendix A, pg. 2 statements 7 through T4,reveal the followingexchange.

Detective: All right. Donovan, listen to me. You have the right to remain silent.Listen to me - look at rre bro! You have the right to remain silent. Anl.thing you saymay be used against you. You have a right to a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyerone will be provided free. Do you understand your rights?Donovan: YeahDetective: Do you wish to answer any questions?Donovan: Not at the moment. Kind of intoxicated.Detective: Well intoxication isn't one of the reasons you can't talk to us. It's uh ...Donovan: It's what?Detective: Three o'clock. Sign this tbr me if you wish to answer questions. Rightthere.

0P #de

2


3/6

r-_]

Donovan: If I wish to answer questions? Like I said not at the moment.4. As the Detective said "sign this for me," he placed the waiver of rights form

across the table in front of the Defendant, tossed a pen and marked the signature line. TheDefendant did not sign.

5. A short time later, the following exchange took place. (See Appendix A, pg.3statements 4 through 13.)

Detective: We just want your side. So sign that and lets - the quicker we do this thequicker we can find you a place to sleep. All right?Donovan: Uh huh.Detective: OK. Go ahead and sign that and we'11go from there.Donovan: What happens if I don't sign it?Detective: Well, we just need you to sign it so we can - that's what - this is StepOne.Donovan: Yeah, but you didn't ans\^/er my question.Detective: What will happen if you don't sign it? Well it's not against the law.Donovan: YeahDetective: And we want to talk to youDonovan: Yeah.6. Then this relevant exchange followed. (See Appendix A, pg. 3 statements 18 and

i9 and pg.4 statements I and2.)Detective: So why don't you sign that and let's move on.

e9 aslJ


4/6

Donovan: So what do you know right now?Detective: Well, sign that and I'll tell you what we know and we'll go from there.Donovan: I'd like to hear that first.7. In one form or another, the Detective told the Defendant to sign the form six times

before the Defendant actually signed the waiver of rights form.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. Detective Martinez adequately informed the Defendant about his 5th and 6th

Amendment rights.2. Mirandav. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,445 (1966), instructs that "if the individual is

alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police maynot question him." (trmphasis added.) The law does not require a suspect to sr"rpply areason, acceptable to the interrogator, for not wishing to answer questions. A suspect's wishto not be interrogated must be "scrupulously honored." (State v. Perry,2009-NMCA-052114; ru6 N.M. 208 quoting Michigan v. Mosley,423 U.5.96 (1975).)

2. Under these standards, the Defendant twice unambiguously invoked his 5tl'Amendment right to remain silent by indicating he did not want to talk "at the moment."(See Appendix A pg. 2 statements 10 and 14.) Even if the Detective understood theDefendant to mean that the Defendant wished to talk, just at a later time, it is clear that theDefendant did not wish to be interrogated at that time.

09 *ffi4


5/6

3. The Defendant's constitutional right to remain silent was violated because theDefendant's invocation of his right was not scrupulously honored and the custodialinterrogation was not terminated.

4. Neither did the Defendant,by a preponderance of the evidence, knowingly andvoluntarily waive his 5'h and 6'h Amendment rights when he signed the waiver of rightsform.

5. The Def-endant signed the fonn unknowingly because his question about theconsequences of refusing to sign the waiver was not answered. (Appendix A, pg. 3statements 7 - 11.)

6. Official coercion rendered the Defendant's signature on the waiver of rights forminvoluntary. Coercion rvas exerted when the Detectr,r"'rr**"rted that evidence pointed tothe Defendant but that the Detective r,vould not divulge the information unless the Defendantsignedthepaper. (AppendixA,pg.3 statements 18, 19;pg.4 statements 1 and 2.) TheDetective's six-time insistence that the Def-endant sign the form contributed to the coerciveenvironment especially since the Defendant had already expressly stated that he did not wantto talk.

7. Becausethe interrogation violated the Defendant's 5'h Amendment rightto remainsilent, and the Defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive that and his otherconstitutional rights, the Defendant's statement should be excluded at trial.

0P afr


6/6

.:

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED thatDefendant's Motion To Suppress Coerced Statements Involuntarily Made to Detective PaulMartinez isgrantedandtheDefendant'sinterviewonMay29,2011 isexcludedasevidenceat trial. To the extent the Defendant prays that "all evidence gathered thereby" besuppressed, the motion is denied at this time.

(*aD"..hJOFIN A. DE,AN, JR.Chief District Judge

!,/cc: r4ospe Ripol, Counsel for the Defendant,,6AertGentile, Office of the District Attomey

6

etD

Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Suppress

Documents

Transcript of Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Suppress