i, e,.l'::l I*:"- i'-'^lfi.

lilIj'l
l ,!. l*r r

""rr
Ii

;,'qir ;lil;iJ if',:

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF SAN JUAN ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

LJ

' t-,._.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff,

v.

No. D-l 1 16-CR 201 100510-4

DONOVAN KING,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant's Motion To Suppress
Coerced Statements Involuntarily Macle to Detective Paul Martinez filed herein on October

21,2011. The Defendant was interviewed by Detective Paul Martinez at the Farmington
Police Department on May 29,2011 commencing at about 3:00 p.m. An audio-visual record

of the interview was made on a digital video disc ("DVD"). The parties have stipulated to
a transcript of the audio portion of the record, the relevant portion of which is attached
hereto as Appendix A and is incorporated herein. Statement numbers have been added to the

transcript and a notation indicating the point at which the Defendant can be seen on the

DVD signing the waiver of rights fbrm.

The Court, having considered the written and oral argument of counsel, having heard

testimony at a hearing convened on December 8,2011 and having reviewed the DVD recording now makes the following Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law and Order.

W&ffi

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

At the time of the interview that is the subject of the motion, the Defendant was

in custody for Miranda ptxposes and was under interrogation by the Detective.

2. At the outset of the interrogation when the Detective explained the Defendant's
Miranda rights, the Defendant appears on the DVD to be physically affected by the alcohol
and marijuana he testified to having consumed during the hours prior to the custodial

interrogation. However, it is clear that the Defendant's mentation was rational and lucid.
He was able to readily recite his date of birth, age, post office box and physical address. His

remarks and questions were logical and appropriate to the situation.

3. The DVD
exchange.

and Appendix A, pg. 2 statements 7 through T4,reveal the following

Detective: All right. Donovan, listen to me. You have the right to remain silent. Listen to me - look at rre bro! You have the right to remain silent. Anl.thing you say may be used against you. You have a right to a lawyer. If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided free. Do you understand your rights?
Donovan: Yeah
Detective: Do you wish to answer any questions? Donovan: Not at the moment. Kind of intoxicated.

Detective: Well intoxication isn't one of the reasons you can't talk to us. It's uh ... Donovan: It's what? Detective: Three o'clock. Sign this tbr me if you wish to answer questions. Right
there.

0P #de

r-_]

Donovan: If I wish to answer questions? Like I said not at the moment.

4.

As the Detective said "sign this for me," he placed the waiver of rights form

across the table in front of the Defendant, tossed a pen and marked the signature

line. The

Defendant did not sign.

5. A short time later, the following

statements 4 through 13.)

exchange took place. (See Appendix

A, pg.3

Detective: We just want your side. So sign that and lets quicker we can find you a place to sleep. All right? Donovan: Uh huh. Detective:

the quicker we do this the

OK. Go ahead and sign that and we'11go from

there.

Donovan: What happens if I don't sign it? Detective: Well, we just need you to sign it so we can
One.

that's what

this is Step

Donovan: Yeah, but you didn't ans\^/er my question.

Detective: What will happen if you don't sign

it? Well it's not against the law.

Donovan: Yeah
Detective: And we want to talk to you

Donovan: Yeah.

6. Then this relevant exchange followed. (See Appendix A, pg. 3 statements

18 and

i9

and pg.4 statements

and2.)

Detective: So why don't you sign that and let's move on.

e9 asl

Donovan: So what do you know right now? Detective: Well, sign that and

I'll

tell you what we know and we'll go from there.

Donovan: I'd like to hear that first.

7. In one form or another, the Detective told the Defendant to sign the form six times
before the Defendant actually signed the waiver of rights form.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.

Detective Martinez adequately informed the Defendant about his 5th and

6th

Amendment rights.

2. Mirandav. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,445 (1966), instructs that "if the individual

is

alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may

not question

him."

(trmphasis added.) The law does not require a suspect to sr"rpply a

reason, acceptable to the interrogator, for not wishing to answer questions. A suspect's wish

to not be interrogated must be "scrupulously honored." (State v. Perry,2009-NMCA-052

114; ru6 N.M. 208 quoting Michigan v. Mosley,423 U.5.96 (1975).)

2.

Under these standards, the Defendant twice unambiguously invoked his

5tl'

Amendment right to remain silent by indicating he did not want to talk "at the moment." (See Appendix

pg. 2 statements 10 and

14.) Even if the Detective understood the

Defendant to mean that the Defendant wished to talk, just at a later time, it is clear that the Defendant did not wish to be interrogated at that time.

09 *ffi

3.

The Defendant's constitutional right to remain silent was violated because the

Defendant's invocation of his right was not scrupulously honored and the custodial
interrogation was not terminated.

4. Neither did the Defendant,by

voluntarily waive his
form.

a preponderance

of the evidence, knowingly and

5'h and 6'h Amendment

rights when he signed the waiver of rights

5.

The Def-endant signed the fonn unknowingly because his question about the

consequences statements 7

of refusing to sign the waiver was not answered. (Appendix A, pg.

11.)

6. Official coercion rendered the Defendant's signature on the waiver of rights form
involuntary. Coercion rvas exerted when the Detectr,r"'rr**"rted that evidence pointed to
the Defendant but that the Detective r,vould not divulge the information unless the Defendant

signedthepaper. (AppendixA,pg.3 statements 18, 19;pg.4 statements 1 and 2.) The

Detective's six-time insistence that the Def-endant sign the form contributed to the coercive
environment especially since the Defendant had already expressly stated that he did not want

to talk. 7. Becausethe interrogation violated the Defendant's

5'h

Amendment rightto remain

silent, and the Defendant did not knowingly and voluntarily waive that and his other
constitutional rights, the Defendant's statement should be excluded at trial.

0P

afr

.:

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

Defendant's Motion To Suppress Coerced Statements Involuntarily Made to Detective Paul

Martinez isgrantedandtheDefendant'sinterviewonMay29,2011 isexcludedasevidence

at trial. To the extent the Defendant prays that "all evidence gathered thereby" be
suppressed, the motion is denied at this time.

(*aD"..h
JOFIN A. DE,AN, JR. Chief District Judge

cc:

r4ospe Ripol, Counsel

,/

for the Defendant

,,6AertGentile, Office of the District Attomey

etD