Michael K.

Jeanes, Clerk of Court

*** Electronically Filed ***
01/09/2008 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CR2007-005091-001 DT 01/07/2008

CLERK OF THE COURT

HONORABLE ARTHUR T. ANDERSON H. Cameron
Deputy

STATE OF ARIZONA KIRSTEN VALENZUELA

v.

MARIO ANTONIO RESENDES (001) STEPHEN C KUNKLE

JUVENILE COURT ADMINISTRATION

- SE
VICTIM SERVICES DIV-CA-CCC

MINUTE ENTRY

1:56 p.m.

State's Attorney: Kirsten Valenzuela

Defendant's Attorney: Stephen Kunkle
Defendant: Present
Court Reporter: Mike Benitez

Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the State’s exhibits
1 and 2 are marked for identification.

Court and counsel discuss the necessity to send this case to the case transfer coordinator.
A separate minute entry shall issue.

Detective Juan F. Lopez is sworn and testifies.

The witness makes an in-court identification of the Defendant.

Docket Code 019 Form R000D Page 1

 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CR2007-005091-001 DT 01/07/2008

Exhibits 1 and 2 are received in evidence.

Exhibit 3 is marked for identification.

The witness is excused.

Exhibit 3 is received in evidence.

Closing Arguments.

IT IS ORDERED taking this matter under advisement.

2:56 p.m. Matter concludes.

LATER:

The Defendant, a minor, contends that any statements he made during the April 24, 2007
interview were involuntary. The Defense contends that Detective Lopez failed to appreciate the
immaturity of this 14 year old Defendant. For example, the Detective should have taken more
time to ensure that the Defendant understood the gravity of the potential charges in adult court,
should have taken steps to have a parent, guardian or lawyer present, and should have given the
Defendant more time to answer questions. It is also contended that the overall circumstances of
this minor’s interrogation, including his use of alcohol and marijuana prior to the interview,
render it involuntary.

The Court has considered the evidence at the hearing, reviewed the interview DVD. Rule
16.2, Ariz. R. Crim. Pro. provides:

Rule 16.2. Procedure on pretrial motions to suppress evidence

* * * *

b. Burden of Proof on Pretrial Motions to Suppress Evidence. The prosecutor shall

have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the lawfulness in all
respects of the acquisition of all evidence which the prosecutor will use at trial. However,
whenever the defense is entitled under Rule 15 to discover the circumstances surrounding
the taking of any evidence by confession, identification or search and seizure, or defense
counsel was present at the taking, or the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search
warrant, the prosecutor's burden of proof shall arise only after the defendant has come

Docket Code 019 Form R000D Page 2

 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY

CR2007-005091-001 DT 01/07/2008

forward with evidence of specific circumstances which establish a prima facie case that
the evidence taken should be suppressed.

The Court finds that the Defense has come forward with a prima facia case that the
statements were involuntary. The State now has the burden to prove the lawfulness of the
confession by a preponderance of the evidence.

In State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389,399 (2006) the Arizona Supreme Court reiterated the
law regarding involuntary statements.

In determining whether a confession is involuntary, the “[court] must look to the totality
of the circumstances surrounding the giving of the confession.” State v. Montes, 136
Ariz. 491, 496, 667 P.2d 191, 196 (1983). Then the court must determine whether, given
the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's will was overborne. State v. Tapia, 159
Ariz. 284, 287-88, 767 P.2d 5, 8-9 (1988). A confession is “prima facie involuntary and
the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was freely
and voluntarily made.” Montes, 136 Ariz. at 496, 667 P.2d at 196.

The evidence is that Juvenile Miranda Warnings were given to the Defendant prior to any
substantive questioning. It appears that the Defendant understood the warnings and freely elected
to proceed without a parent, guardian or lawyer. During this approximate one hour interview, the
Defendant appears alert, provides responsive answers and does not appear to be under the
influence of alcohol, drugs, or duress.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying the Motion to Suppress the Defendant’s

Statements.

Docket Code 019 Form R000D Page 3