State v. Ortega, Minn.S.Ct., 6/1/2011. A jury convicted Mr. Ortega of aiding and abetting first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, Mr. Ortega challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements to the police.
Mr. Ortega and the victim, Mr. Ulrich, lived in the same apartment building. Mr. Ortega, Mr. Ulrich and others had partied earlier in the evening, during which things were sometimes heated between Mr. Ortega and Mr. Ulrich. Mr. Ortega demanded that Mr. Ulrich leave, a demand that he emphasized with a baseball bat and a machete; Mr. Ulrich took the hint and retired to a nearby garage.
Where the argument resumed. Mr. Ortega, along with his grandfather, started hitting Mr. Ulrich. (Did I mention that Mr. Ulrich had only one arm?) The two Ortega’s continued hitting Mr. Ulrich, and one of them also stabbed Mr. Ulrich with a knife. Mr. Ulrich died from the knife wounds.
Investigators eventually arrested Mr. Ortega. When two BCA agents came in to talk to Mr. Ortega, the first thing out of his mouth was to ask if he needed a lawyer. Here’s the answer he got:
[WOLD]: Um, I give you this opportunity right now, Daniel, Danny, if you want to talk to us, that’s great. If you don’t, that is your choice. You mentioned a lawyer right away. I can’t talk to you if you want to speak to a lawyer but I’m going to give you your rights, listen to them, but understand that I’m not going to have an idea and [Agent Mueller]’s not going to have an idea as to what happened in that room from your prospective [sic] last night, what you’re saying happened unless you tell us.
[APPELLANT]: It’s not going to matter what I say though.
[WOLD]: Well, if it’s what you and your dad say, if what you and your dad say is, is close, ah, and it paints a different story then [sic] other people are saying, then it’s more believable isn’t it, two, two people say one thing but I need for you to say that and before you do that, before I ask any questions specifically about this incident, ah, it’s ah, a law, it’s a rule that I have to give you your rights, okay? And I just ask you to be open minded and talk to us and tell us your version of things, okay? Um, number one you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. You have the right to a lawyer and to have that lawyer with you while you are being questioned. If you can’t afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you without any cost to yourself. Do you understand those rights Danny?
[APPELLANT]: Yes sir.
[WOLD]: Okay. And having, and keeping in mind everything that we’ve talked about as I’m, as I was explaining your rights to you, do you want to tell us your side of the story tonight?
[APPELLANT]: Yeah.
Mr. Ortega started talking. He made some admissions about hitting Mr. Ulrich, but he denied anything to do with the knifing of Mr. Ulrich. The agents continued to press Mr. Ortega to admit to the knife; instead Mr. Ortega said “I ain’t got nothin’ else to say man. That’s it, I’m through. I told you.” The agent pressed on:
[WOLD]: Well, I’m confused, why . . .
[APPELLANT]: I’m getting hard headed right now so just please, I’m through. Seriously.
[WOLD]: Okay, well I just want to give you a chance to, to tell us everything, I’m just confused about ah, why you won’t just tell us where . . .
[APPELLANT]: I told you, I didn’t, I the last time I seen that knife, my dad had it.
The agent then observed how he though that Mr. Ortega was tight with his granddad, at which point Mr. Ortega confessed to the stabbing.
The agent thought that Mr. Ortega didn’t want to talk about the stabbing or the knife when he said that he was “through.” The legal question is whether this is an unambiguous and unequivocal articulation of his desire to remain silent that a reasonable officer would understand. State v. Day, 619 N.W.2d 745, 749 (Minn. 2000). The appellate court thought that Mr. Ortega’s statement, “I ain’t got nothing else to say man.” could mean either that he didn’t have any more information, or he didn’t want to share that additional information.
Mr. Ortega also complained that the trial court admitted the statements even though he began the interview with the question about whether he was supposed to have a lawyer present. Minnesota law requires an officer to “stop and clarify” an ambiguous request for counsel. State v. Robinson, 427 N.W.2d 217, 223 (Minn. 1988). (The appellate court cast some doubt on the continuing viability of this “stop and clarify” requirement, but leaves it in place for now.) The appellate court decides that providing Mr. Ortega with an accurate Miranda warning suffices to satisfy this “stop and clarify” requirement. Apparently doing so while also telling Mr. Ortega that his side of the story would never be told unless he talked was alright.
Justices Page and Paul H. Anderson dissented on the suppression issue but would have found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment