 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Goff9/10/2004
stances do not appear threatening or to be custodial. A reasonable person in defendant's shoes would not have believed he was under formal arrest before Sergeant Nicholson so advised him on January 12. (Mosley, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1088-1089.) In fact, when defendant was arrested on January 12, he seemed surprised. At the pretrial hearing, Nicholson did not recount any statements defendant made on January 11. In any event, the record does not reflect any such statements were coerced. Even assuming defendant's statements on January 11 were taken in violation of Miranda, a noncoercive Miranda violation does not vitiate a subsequent statement obtained with a Miranda waiver. (Oregon v. Elstad (1985) 470 U.S. 298, 308-309 [84 L.Ed.2d 222, 232]; People v. Storm (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1007, 1030; People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1039.)
On January 12, defendant was informed of his rights under Miranda and stated that he understood them. Although defendant was not asked and did not state that he waived his rights, the record supports a valid, implied waiver. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the officer used intimidation, coercion, or deception to induce defendant's statements. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to reflect that defendant declined to waive his rights. Sergeant Nicholson described defendant as alert and responsive in the hospital, which the court also found. Nothing in the record suggests defendant had any difficulty understanding his rights.
Defendant claims he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights because his judgment was affected by his injuries. Although he was injured, the transcript of his statements belies his claim; he responded appropriately to questioning, and there is no indication he was on medication that affected his ability to understand.
We conclude the trial court properly found a valid, implied waiver, and properly ruled defendant's tape-recorded statements on January 12 were not taken in violation of Miranda and were admissible. (Whitson, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 248-249.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|