People v. Nelson

Facts

D turned 15 years old in April 2004. Later that month, he burglarized Katherine Parks's home and took two purses. In May 2004, he burglarized Sheryl Adler's home and took two wallets and a checkbook. On June 18, 2004, defendant burglarized the home of his 72-year-old neighbor, Jane Thompson, taking a credit card. On June 26, 2004, Thompson was found dead in her home. The cause of death was massive blunt-force head trauma, with multiple skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging. Investigators spoke with D outside his home. D claimed he had no idea who might have killed Thompson, and said he was willing to take a lie detector test. After further investigation, they returned to D's home, and D agreed to discuss the case with them and was driven to the sheriff's office. In a videotaped interview, D was advised of his right to counsel and right to remain silent under Miranda. D affirmed that he understood his rights and expressed a willingness to speak with the investigators. D admitted entering Thompson's house and taking some jewelry, her credit card, and her purse. He denied responsibility for Thompson's murder. About three and a half hours, the investigators asked D if he wanted to take a polygraph test, and D asked to call his mother. When the investigators asked the reason for the call, he said he wanted to “let her know what's happening” and also to “talk to her about it” and “see what I should do.” The investigators continued with their questions, which D answered. D changed his story several times and ultimately confessed to the burglaries of the Parks and Adler residences. He also made additional requests to call his mother and was permitted several times to try to reach her. At one point, he indicated he wanted the investigators to leave him alone because, in his words, they were “getting on me for something I didn't do.” D declined to take a polygraph test because his relatives had told him in a telephone call that they did not want him to “take the test” or “do anything” until a lawyer or his mother got there. D asked to have “a few minutes to myself” and answered affirmatively when investigators offered him a pencil and paper to write down his feelings. The investigators left the room after telling defendant this was his chance to explain what happened and to “do the right thing.” They again allowed D to telephone his mother and brother. When the investigators returned, D said he had not written anything and asked, “Do you think I could be alone until my family gets here? They should be here in like 10 minutes?” The investigators told D they were “real tired” of his playing games, reiterated he should take this opportunity to say what happened in his own words, and left once more. D then wrote out a statement and later explained that he entered Thompson's house in the middle of the night as she dozed on her living room sofa and that he used his hammer to strike her head repeatedly when she suddenly stirred. D filed a motion in limine to exclude his custodial confessions from trial. D claimed that the investigators violated his Fifth Amendment rights by continuing to interrogate him despite his various requests to speak with his mother and requests to be alone. After the trial court denied this motion, D waived his right to a jury and submitted to a bench trial. The court found him guilty as charged. The Court of Appeal reversed. Based on D's age, experience, maturity, sophistication, and the length, intensity, and content of the interrogation, a majority of the court concluded that D's purpose in making his first request to speak with his mother was to secure her assistance in protecting his Fifth Amendment rights. It held, any and all statements made after that request were obtained in violation of Miranda. P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.