Saturday, October 13, 2012

Colorado Court of Appeals People v. Wilson 10CA0788

Decision here.

   Wilson raped a woman at gunpoint, and was caught five years later because of DNA evidence.  He was convicted, and he appealed for various reasons.  His conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because of some issue with jury selection, but the court of appeals also addressed some other arguments to prevent them from coming up again after the new trial.  The only one that matters to this blog is a Miranda issue.

   Part of Wilson's defense is that he was never in Colorado, and so the prosecution presented some evidence that he had ties to the state.  A deputy who was transporting Wilson from California to Colorado had asked him a few questions during the transport about whether or not anyone knew he was going to Colorado, and whether certain family members in Colorado would accept collect calls.  Useless information, normally, and the deputy testified that he asked these questions just to make small talk, so he could ascertain Wilson's level of cooperation.  

   It is undisputed that Wilson was in custody.  It is also undisputed that he had not waived Miranda.  So the question is whether or not the deputy's questions amounted to interrogation.  Interrogation has been interpreted by the courts to mean any words or actions by the police which are likely to elicit an incriminating response.  Interrogation specifically does not include questions that are just part of the arrest procedure (like name, address, etc), but it also doesn't include small talk or casual conversation.  I don't think I'd want to push that particular point, because it seems like it would be tough to convince the court that chatting with a suspect wasn't an attempt to gain information.  However, in this case it was pretty obvious: the deputy wasn't part of the investigation at all, he was just a transport officer.  He really had no way of knowing that the answer to a question like "does your wife accept collect calls from you?" would become evidence in a rape trial.  His small talk did not amount to interrogation, so the statements were properly admitted at trial.

No comments:

Post a Comment