Yarborough v. Alvarado

541 U.S. 652 (2004)

Facts

Soto and D attempted to steal a truck in the parking lot of a shopping mall in Santa Fe Springs, California. Soto decided to steal the truck, and D agreed to help. Soto pulled out a .357 Magnum and approached the driver who was standing near the truck emptying trash into a dumpster. Soto demanded money and the ignition keys. D, then five months short of his 18th birthday, approached the passenger side door of the truck and crouched down. When the driver refused to comply with Soto's demands, Soto shot Castaneda, killing him. D then helped hide Soto's gun. A month after the shooting, police asked D's parents to speak with D. They brought D to the police station and waited in the lobby while the police interviewed D. D contends that his parents asked to be present during the interview but were rebuffed. The interview lasted about two hours and was recorded with D's knowledge. One police officer and D were present. D was not given a warning under Miranda. After being confronted with the shooting information, D slowly began to change his story. The officer tried to encourage D to discuss what happened by appealing to his sense of honesty and the need to bring the man who shot Castaneda to justice. D then admitted he had helped the other man try to steal the truck by standing near the passenger side door. Next, he admitted that the other man was Paul Soto, that he knew Soto was armed, and that he had helped hide the gun after the murder. D explained that he had expected Soto to scare the driver with the gun, but that he did not expect Soto to kill anyone. Toward the end of the interview, the officer twice asked D if he needed to take a break. D declined. When the interview was over, the officer returned with D to the lobby of the sheriff's station where his parents were waiting. D's father drove him home. Both Soto and D were charged with first-degree murder and attempted robbery. D moved to suppress his statements. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the interview was noncustodial. During cross-examination, D agreed that the interview with the officer 'was a pretty friendly conversation,' that there was 'sort of a free flow between them and that he did not 'feel coerced or threatened in any way' during the interview. The jury convicted Soto and D of first-degree murder and attempted robbery. The trial judge later reduced Alvarado's conviction to second-degree murder for his comparatively minor role in the offense. The judge sentenced Soto to life in prison and D to 15-years-to-life. The Second Appellate District Court of Appeal affirmed. D had not been in custody during the interview, so no warning was required. The California Supreme Court denied discretionary review. D filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court. The District Court agreed with the state court that D was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the interview. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The state court erred in failing to account for D's youth and inexperience when evaluating whether a reasonable person in his position would have felt free to leave. It noted that this Court has considered a suspect's juvenile status when evaluating the voluntariness of confessions and the waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.