 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Mayfield1/2/1997
ting occurred on defendant's initiative, not that of the police. Granting defendant's request cannot be equated with custodial interrogation.
Defendant's second argument is that the statement was obtained in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, (supra) , 384 U.S. 436, because Roy Mayfield was acting as an unwitting or implied police agent who interrogated defendant after defendant had invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. We reject the claim for two reasons. First, as the United States Supreme Court has explained, " onversations between suspects and undercover agents do not implicate the concerns underlying Miranda." ( Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292, 296 [110 L. Ed. 2d 243, 251, 110 S. Ct. 2394]; see also People v. Webb (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 494, 525-526 [24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779, 862 P.2d 779].) Second, Roy Mayfield was not a police agent sent to elicit incriminating information from defendant. (See People v. Gallego, (supra) , 52 Cal. 3d 115, 170.) "None of the police agent cases cited by defendant indicates that it would have been improper for the officers to grant an inmate's relatives special visitation privileges in the unspoken hope that they might elicit statements from defendant and inform the officers thereof." ( People v. Medina, (supra) , 51 Cal. 3d 870, 892, original italics.)
In this connection, the trial court expressly found that Roy Mayfield was not a police agent during his conversation with defendant at the Rialto police station. At the hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence in question, Roy Mayfield testified that an officer (he did not remember which officer) told him that he could speak to defendant only if he agreed to help the officers obtain information from defendant about the shooting of Sergeant Wolfley, that after he spoke with defendant the officer asked him what defendant had said, and that the officer became "furious" when Roy Mayfield refused to relate defendant's statements. But this testimony was directly contradicted by Detective Amicone, who testified that Roy Mayfield was not asked to obtain a statement from defendant, nor was the permission for Roy Mayfield to speak to defendant conditioned on Roy Mayfield's agreement to obtain a statement from defendant. Further, Amicone denied that he became upset when Roy Mayfield initially declined to relate the substance of his conversation with defendant.
The trial court resolved this conflict in favor of the prosecution, expressly finding that no condition was imposed on Roy Mayfield's visit with defendant and, as previously mentioned, that Roy Mayfield was not a police agent. Because they are supported by substantial evidence, we accept these factual findings. ( People v. Crittenden, (supra) , 9 Cal. 4th 83, 128.) Therefore, Roy Mayfield's conversation with defendant did not violate defendant's rights under Miranda v. Arizona, (supra) , 384 U.S. 436.
Defendant argues, third, that defendant's statements to his father were involuntary, even in the absence of overt coercion, because he believed his father was his ally when in fact his father was acting as a police agent. (See People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 724, 745-746 [205 Cal. Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161].) Defendant's argument fails because it is based on the erroneous premise that Roy Mayfield was acting as a government agent. A finding of coercive police activity is a prerequisite for a finding that a confession was involuntary under the due process clauses of the federal or the state Constitution. ( Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 167 [93 L. Ed. 2d 473, 484-485, 107 S. Ct. 515]; People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 950, 988 [22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 689, 857 P.2d 1099]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal. 3d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|