Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

Most people are familiar with the first lines of the Miranda warning, "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law." However, not everyone is aware of the specific constitutional rights embodied in the warning.

The Miranda warning originates from the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court held that it was a violation of a person's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination to be interrogated while in police custody without being warned of the right not to speak. If police fail to inform a suspect of their Miranda right to remain silent and interrogate him while in custody, any confession or incriminating information stemming from the interrogation will not be admissible in court.

Miranda warnings are meant to counter-balance the inherently coercive and intimidating setting of a custodial interrogation. However, Miranda warnings are not always required. A suspect must only be informed of their 5th Amendment right if he or she is (1) interrogated by a known state agent (2) while in custody.

First, Miranda protections apply only to testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence includes verbal, written or other non-verbal communication intended to convey thoughts or offered as proof of the truth of what is being stated. For example, if a person nods her head in response to a question, this is non-verbal testimonial evidence and therefore protected by Miranda. However, physical or real evidence is not protected by the 5th Amendment clause against self-incrimination. Physical evidence includes hair, skin, DNA, and handwriting samples. It also includes fingerprints and voice exemplars.

Second, the suspect must actually know that the person conducting the interrogation is a state agent for Miranda protections to apply. This requirement is usually easy to meet when an individual is questioned by a known police officer. However, there is no Miranda protection for statements gathered by a private person's interrogation, regardless of whether the suspect is in custody or not. Courts have also held that Miranda excludes interrogations by police informants or undercover police officers. The rationale behind this is that if the suspect does not know the other person is a state agent, there is no coercion.

It is also important to define both "interrogation" and "custody" for purposes of Miranda warnings. Under federal and New Mexico case law, "interrogation" for 5th Amendment purposes has a precise definition. For a situation to entail "interrogation" it must have been express questioning. The Supreme Court defined interrogation as "any words or actions... that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response." For example, a volunteered or spontaneous statement is not the product of interrogation and will be admissible in court even if the individual was not provided with Miranda warnings.

Finally, "custody" also has a specific meaning under Miranda case law. Custody, for 5th Amendment purposes, means that the person was formally placed under arrest or that his or her freedom of movement was so restrained that it is correlated to formal arrest. A person does not have to be physically restrained by an officer; the words, "you are under arrest" are enough to satisfy this requirement.

When there is no formal arrest courts must analyze whether the person reasonably believed he or she was free to leave and terminate the interview. According to federal and New Mexico law, however, brief traffic stops (Terry stops) or short questioning by a police officer on the street does not rise to the level of "full custodial arrest" under Miranda. Further, a person is not considered to be in custody when he voluntarily goes to a police station for questioning, especially if the officer warns that he is not under arrest and free to leave at any time.

Once interrogation has begun, a suspect is also entitled to retain an attorney or have one appointed to them if they are indigent. Once a suspect invokes their right to an attorney, all interrogation from police must end at once until the attorney has been contacted.

There is an important public safety exception to Miranda warnings. Statements obtained while in a situation that involved heightened public danger are admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings. However, this is a limited exception that only applies in situations where (1) the officer reasonably believed that the information was necessary to protect life and property form a substantial threat and (2) the questioning was restricted to what was reasonably necessary to acquire the information.

Each case is unique and likewise requires individual analysis. If you are facing a situation where you believe your Miranda rights have been violated, you should discuss the facts and circumstances with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Thanks to Hollywood and TV crime dramas, almost anyone can recite the standard Miranda warning, "you have the right to remain silent..." However, fewer people understand the meaning of this constitutional right and when a defendant is entitled to its protection.

In the 2010 New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. Wilson, the Court recently ruled on the admissibility of criminal confessions in cases where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings and his or her judgment may have been impaired.

In Stave v. Wilson, the Defendant was convicted of suffocating a two-year old foster child that lived in his home. The Defendant confessed to having killed the child in a second interview conducted at the police department several days after the incident. A day before the second interview, the Defendant voluntarily checked himself into a mental facility where he was prescribed the antipsychotic Seraquel upon checking out the next day.

Before the interview began, the interrogating detective advised Defendant that he was free to leave or terminate the interview whenever he wanted. He also advised the Defendant that he was not under arrest at this time and had no obligation to speak. Defendant asserted that he wanted to make a statement. During the videotaped interview, Defendant confessed to having smothered the victim with a blanket, reenacted the act with a doll, and wrote a handwritten confession and letter apologizing to the child's biological parents.

The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, stating that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of his confession into evidence at trial, despite the absence of Miranda warnings or the possibility that his judgment may have been impaired.

Miranda warnings are a vital part of due process and are encapsulated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. If an individual is interrogated while in custody, due process dictates that any statements made during the interrogation are only admissible in court if the individual is first given Miranda warnings.

However, Miranda warnings are not always necessary for a confession to be admissible at trial under due process. According to New Mexico case law, Miranda warnings are required only when "a person is (1) interrogated while (2) in custody." In the current case, the New Mexico Supreme Court defined "in custody" for purposes of Miranda warnings.

Following previous decisions, the Court defined "custody" as an objective determination where a court must decide whether a reasonable person being interviewed by police would believe that they are free to leave and terminate the interview. The factors a court should take into account when analyzing whether a person understood their situation include the length of the interrogation, where it took place, the nature of the evidence defendant is confronted with, etc. Applying those factors to the facts of the case, the Court found that even though the interview occurred in an interrogation room at a police station, a reasonable person in Defendant's position would have understood that he was free to leave at any time.

The Court also addressed Defendant's contention that his confession was not voluntary because he was in an impaired mental state. Under federal and New Mexico law, a confession must be voluntary to be admissible against a defendant. Absent "official coercion," a defendant's impaired mental state is not sufficient to make a confession involuntary.

Applying this standard to the case, the Court found that despite the interrogating officer's general knowledge that Defendant had been admitted into a mental facility, the Defendant was acting normal and all facts pointed to the general opinion that Defendant's mental state was improving. The Court found no element of coercion on the interrogator's part, and held that even if Defendant's judgment were impaired, the statement was not involuntary because the interrogator was not reasonably aware of it.

Though the outcome of the case under the facts is not partiucalrly problematic. Some of the court's language may prove problematic for defendants in the future. In clarifying the second prong required to trigger Miranda warnings, the New Mexico Supreme Court makes a defendant's individual, subjective belief that he is in custody irrelevant if it does not match up with the "objective" standard.

This position fails to take into account that most people lack sufficient knowledge of the law to be held to an objective standard. After all this will turn on whether an individual knows enough about the legal system to recognize that he or she is free to leave. Even though a reasonable person that is aware of their rights may know that they are free to leave, a reasonable person who is unaware of this right may not.

Perhaps more problematic for defendants, this ruling makes a confession voluntary even if the individual confessing is impaired so long as the interrogator is reasonably unaware of this fact. And how is "reasonable awareness" to be measured?

When questioned by police, keep in mind you have the right to counsel. Exercise this right. Ask to speak with a criminal defense attorney. Then, stop talking!

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The juvenile criminal process in New Mexico differs in several ways from the adult process. In some ways juveniles are granted more favorable rights than adults, including such procedural an due process protections as the guarantee of a speedy trial. In State v. Castro, the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently discussed the effect of a no bill on dismissal and on speedy trial time limits.

A no bill is a determination by a grand jury that there is not sufficient evidence to return an indictment against an individual. In some courts around the state, a preliminary hearing is used instead of the grand jury process. The juvenile process typically more closely follows the preliminary hearing process in adult felony proceedings. However, in very serious felony cases, the juvenile may be charged as a youthful offender which in some counties will result in a grand jury. Other smaller counties will generally stick with the preliminary hearing process.

In New Mexico juvenile court, a delinquency petition sets forth the charges against the child in much the same way that a criminal complaint operates in adult court. Once the criminal process begins against a child in custody, the Children's Court Rules sets a 30-day time limit within which an adjudicatory hearing must begin. An adjudicatory hearing is one where a judge decides whether there is probably cause to believe the charges against the child have some factual basis, like a preliminary hearing in adult court.

Under the Children's Court Rules, the time for the adjudicatory hearing may be extended by no more than 60 days. If the time limits are not complied with, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice. When a case is dismissed with prejudice, the defendant cannot be recharged.

In State v. Castro, the State filed a delinquency petition against the defendant child chargin him as a youthful offender. The defendant child was served while in custody, triggering the 30-day time limit to commence an adjudicatory hearing. The State presented the grand jury with a list of all the delinquent acts contained in the delinquency petition. The grand jury, however, returned a no bill, meaning that it did not find probable cause to charge the Defendant.

The court did not hold an adjudicatory hearing within the 30-day limit, but instead held a hearing to entertain a motion from the State requesting an extension and a motion from the Defendant to deny the extension. At the hearing, the court dismissed the delinquency petition with prejudice for failure to comply with the 30-day time limit.

On appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals found that the return of a no-bill from the grand jury operated as a dismissal of all the charges against the defendant without prejudice, meaning that the State is free to re-charge the defendant with the same crimes. Since the return of the no-bill operated as a dismissal, the Court continued, there were no pending charges against the Defendant at the time of the motion hearing. Therefore, the 30-day time limit was not applicable, and the lower court lacked the authority to dismiss the case with prejudice.

What the holding in this case comes down to is that when a grand jury returns a no bill, even though the case is dismissed and the charges are no longer pending against the Defendant, the State is free to re-file charges against the Defendant for the same offense once it has gathered more evidence.

The time limits were put in place so that once the State begins the criminal process against an individual, the accused is guaranteed a speedy trial. This ensures that the State will gather necessary evidence before it files charges and that citizens will not be unnecessarily harassed. However, it seems that this ruling effectively stops the clock in favor of the State, allowing it to charge an individual again if it did not achieve its goals the first time around.

As one might gather from reading the above, this is a complex process and one would be wise to seek the counsel of a criminal defense attorney from the outset. If you cannot afford a private attorney, there many very capable public offenders that are there to assist you.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys