|
Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || September 22, 2014 Colorado Supreme Court -- September 22, 2014
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2014 CO 72
Supreme Court Case No. 14SA88
Plaintiff-Appellant:
Order Reversed
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant:
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee:  JUSTICE BOATRIGHT delivered the Opinion of the Court.   ¶1     In this interlocutory appeal pursuant to C.A.R. 4.1, we consider whether the trial court should have suppressed statements that Defendant-Appellee Mr. Ari Liggett made to investigators during an interview on October 17, 2012. The trial court suppressed the majority of the statements that Liggett made during this interview because it found that they were involuntary. We, however, hold that, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the investigators never overbore Liggettâs will, and thus his statements were voluntary. Accordingly, we reverse the trial courtâs suppression order and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Facts and Proceedings Below ¶2     A police officer stopped the vehicle that Liggett was driving and, upon asking dispatch to scan the license plate, determined that it was associated with both a missing person (Liggettâs mother) and an armed-and-dangerous person (Liggett himself). After the police officer ordered Liggett to turn the car off and place his hands through the window, Liggett sped off and a police chase ensued. During the chase, when Liggett attempted to make a right turn, the vehicle spun out and hit a concrete wall. Liggett then exited the vehicle and ran, and the police chased him on foot. Eventually, Liggett threw his hands up and surrendered, and the officers handcuffed him. ¶3     Then, while âthe officers were talking among themselves,â Liggett made several unprompted statements, including:
¶4     Without responding to Liggettâs assertions, the officers placed him in the backseat of a police car because he was under arrest. At that time, Sergeant Peterson asked Liggett if he was okay. Liggett responded that he was physically fine but that the past couple of days had been difficult. On suspicion that Liggett was involved with his motherâs disappearance, Sergeant Peterson then asked Liggett if he would be willing to go to the sheriffâs office and speak with some investigators. Liggett answered in the affirmative, and the police then took him to the sheriffâs office. ¶5     There, the investigators interviewed Liggett, un-handcuffed, in a small room. Liggett first spoke primarily with Investigator Clark and then separately with Sergeant Peterson. The interview began at approximately 2:50 a.m. when Investigator Clark stated, âI know that . . . you came down here on your own,â to which Liggett contradicted, âI actually didnât, you know. People, you know, um, more wanted to talk to me.â Investigator Clark responded by asking Liggett, â[D]o you want to talk to me? Iâll help you out how I can, okay?â Liggett did not answer the question but ratherstated, âUm, basically it boils down to thisâ and then launched into a speech of sorts that included the following statements:
¶6     Eventually, Investigator Clark returned Liggett to the task at hand, stating that he was going to read Liggett his Miranda rights and clarifying, â[R]eally the things [sic] I need to talk to you about is your mom.â After Investigator Clark read Liggett his Miranda rights, Liggett asked, âCan you call a public defender to be here now?â Investigator Clark responded, âNo.â He then gave Liggett a written copy of his rights and asked him to sign and initial the document. As Liggett prepared to sign the document, he stated, âYou know, I would be found incompetent, um, at this present time. . . . Would all this be rejected as evidence if I talk to you?â Investigator Clark did not answer Liggettâs question but stated, âSo this is just up to you whether or not you want to talk or not.â Liggett, in turn, did not respond directly to Investigator Clarkâs statement but asked where he should sign and initial the document. ¶7     After Liggett signed and initialed the document, Investigator Clark began asking him questions about his whereabouts for the past couple of days, which led to questions about his mother and culminated with, âIs your Mom hurt?â In response, Liggett first explained, âI think she might have committed suicide,â and he eventually told Investigator Clark that she did so by ingesting potassium cyanide because she was âbipolar.â And while he gave additional details over the course of the interview, he maintained that he found his mom dead and âpanickedâ because he needed money and was only included in her will as a trust beneficiary. Consequently, he decided to cover up her suicide so that he could continue to use her credit cards and checks. He further expounded that in an effort to conceal the suicide, he called two friends who came to the house to help him.1 ¶8     Liggett also explained to Investigator Clark why he was not responsible for his motherâs death. For example, after the investigator told Liggett that the police had found potassium cyanide in the familyâs refrigerator, Liggett stated numerous times that it would have been impossible for him to put a lethal dose of potassium cyanide in his motherâs food without her noticing because of its strong odor and taste. He also stated that while he panicked and was worried about money when he found his mother dead, he had no motive to kill her because he was not worried about money in general -- in fact, he was planning on filing several lawsuits that would result in substantial judgments in his favor. In response, Investigator Clark -- testing another possible motive -- stated that he had information that Liggettâs mother was planning on asking him to leave the house when she got married. Investigator Clark asked Liggett whether that upset him. Liggett responded that he did not believe she really would have gotten married and that it was simply untrue that his mother and her fiancé had asked him to leave. He also explained that if they did get married, he would benefit because shewould be âless abusiveâ to him and he âwould have more money.â Lastly, Liggett explained his version of events by repeatedly stating that his motherâs suicide made sense because â1 in 20, uh, bipolars will commit suicide and [his mother] had severe bipolar.â ¶9     In response to Liggettâs statements, Investigator Clarkâs tone was cordial, and he never raised his voice. Indeed, throughout the entire interview, he remained calm and respectful while he persistently questioned Liggett about his actions, motives, and whereabouts over the past couple of days. Liggett provided answers to each question, never wavering from the following basic elements:
¶10     Then, approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes into the interview, Investigator Clark got Liggett a glass of water and they took a short break. Investigator Clark then changed tactics and sympathized with Liggett by asking, âYour mom didnât treat you fair, did she?â Liggett explained that in 10th grade he realized that everyone had the power to shape-change but him and that âevery day [he] begged for help.â Investigator Clark and Liggett then had the following exchange: Investigator Clark: âAnd you wanted help.â Liggett: âI wanted help very, very badly.â Investigator Clark: âYou mom didnât give it to you.â Liggett: âMy mom told me to go to the mental hospital.â Investigator Clark: âAnd you didnât want to do that.â ¶11     Starting from the premise that Liggettâs mom âha[d] been abusive to [him his] whole life,â Investigator Clark then challenged Liggett, stating that he did not believe that the two men existed or that his mother committed suicide but rather that Liggett murdered her. Investigator Clark then expounded on how exactly Liggett murdered his mother. In response, Liggett kept denying the accusations and redirected the interview by telling Investigator Clark, âI need you to go through that step-by-step again, and this time weâre gonna stop at each step, and Iâm gonna explain to you why it didnât happen and give you evidence that it didnât happen.â Investigator Clark then complied with the request by describing his account in snippets. Liggett responded by explaining why he thought Investigator Clark was wrong. ¶12     At this time and during the entire interview, Liggett frequently interjected with several statements related to themes about his beliefs and his mental state. For example, when Investigator Clark said, âYou know, I really kind of need to know the names of these friends,â Liggett responded, âI know you want to, but again, I . . . first of all I think breaking the law is the right thing to do.â He also told Investigator Clark that he is God but possessed by demons: Iâm possessed by demons and their knowledge of the force is just physically or, whatever you wanna call it, stronger than mine. . . . We live in a corrupt society where I am the, uh . . . uh, Iâm the highest. Iâm God so thereâs no one who can teach me how to be free. He also asserted that this corrupt society was âout to get [him].â And, according to Liggett, his mother, in particular, sought to repress him: â[Y]ou know, I wanted out of that house very, very, very badly. Iâm not her son, you know, Iâm her victim. Iâve been trying to press charges on her for years. . . . I believe sheâs a shape changer who is willfully giving in to evil.â ¶13     In response, Investigator Clark patiently allowed Liggett to assert his beliefs and even conceded that Liggett was the smarter of the two: Investigator Clark: âI told you once, Iâm just a dumb cop.â Liggett: âAlright, alright. I see. So I gotta work with you down here.â Investigator Clark: âPlease do. At my level.â Liggett: âAlright.â Investigator Clark: âCan you do that?â Liggett: âIâll do my best.â Investigator Clark then attempted to get Liggett to speak at his âlevelâ and, for the remainder of the interview, to tell him âthe truth.â Despite the investigatorsâ variety of different interrogation tactics, Liggett maintained his version of events. The interview with Investigator Clark ended with Liggett explaining that his mother could have put the potassium cyanide into any food substance to commit suicide, while acknowledging that it was possible, but âunlikely,â that she accidentally ingested it. In total, Investigator Clarkâs interview of Liggett lasted over three hours, including two short breaks during which Investigator Clark got Liggett water to drink. At no point did Liggett accept any responsibility for his motherâs death. ¶14     Then, after a 1-hour-and-18-minute break -- during which Liggett used the restroom, and the investigators got Liggett breakfast and 2 cups of coffee â Sergeant Peterson, who had spoken with Liggett in the police car, interviewed him for approximately 1 hour. At the outset, he stated, âI just didnât know if there was anything you wanted to talk to me about because we had seen each other earlier tonight when you were in the car.â After a digression, during which Liggett confirmed that he was not injured and learned that Sergeant Peterson was investigating his motherâs disappearance, Liggett directed the interview by asking Sergeant Peterson, âSo tell me about whatâs going through your mind about [the investigation].â Sergeant Peterson countered by stating that he was really trying to get Liggett to âshare [his] thoughts,â and for the remainder of this portion of the interview, he told Liggett that he knew Liggett had killed his mother. Instead of asking what happened, Sergeant Peterson asked Liggett why he murdered his mother, for example, stating, â[Liggett],2 will you tell me why you had to kill your mom? Please? Just tell me why it had to happen. There has to be a reason.â Again, Liggett responded by maintaining that his mother committed suicide because she was âbipolar.â He also emphasized the same themes that he had discussed with Investigator Clark:
¶15     Approximately halfway through this portion of the interview, Sergeant Peterson asked Liggett, âI have a couple other questions if you donât mind, is that okay? Or do you want to stop?â Liggett responded, âNo, you can ask what youâre gonna ask.â Sergeant Peterson then continued to ask Liggett why he killed his mother. Not only did Liggett not tell Sergeant Peterson why he supposedly killed his mother, but he disagreed with Sergeant Peterson about the basic premise -- that he had in fact killed her: âIf you tell me your evidence, I can tell you why it didnât happen that way.â Instead of answering, Sergeant Peterson kept pressing him, even addressing him in the third person: Sergeant Peterson: âWhy did [Liggett] have to kill his mom? If youâre God, you would know.â Liggett: â[Liggett] did not kill his mom.â Sergeant Peterson: âWe both know he did.â Liggett: âWe donât know he did.â Sergeant Peterson: âNo, we both know he killed his mom, but I donât know the reason why. You know that.â Liggett: â[Liggett] did not kill his mom.â ¶16     After that exchange, Sergeant Peterson told Liggett that he was âgonna have to leave this roomâ because he had a meeting to attend. The interview then ended similarly to how the entire colloquy had proceeded, with Sergeant Peterson asking, âAre you gonna tell me why you had to kill her?â and Liggett responding, âI didnât do it.â A police officer then handcuffed Liggett and took him to jail. ¶17     Subsequently, the People charged Liggett with one count each of first-degree murder, crime of violence, and vehicular eluding.3 Liggett pled not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court ordered a sanity evaluation. Dr. Wortzel of the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo conducted a Sanity and Mental Condition Evaluation, which included a review of Liggettâs interview on October 17, 2012. ¶18     During pre-trial motions, Liggett moved to suppress the statements he made during the interview on October 17, 2012, arguing that they were involuntary. The trial court found that Liggettâs question to Investigator Clark -- âCan you call a public defender to be here now?â -- was an âunequivocal invocationâ of his right to counsel, and as a result, it found that Investigator Clark violated Liggettâs Miranda rights when he responded, âNo.â The trial court therefore found it âimportant to delineate between the initial statements at the sheriffâs office before the Miranda warnings and then the statements subsequent to the Miranda warnings.â After considering several factors, including the Miranda violation, the court denied Liggettâs motion as to the statements he made before Investigator Clark violated his Miranda rights. The trial court, however, suppressed the statements Liggett made after Investigator Clark denied his right to an attorney because of the Miranda violation and because it found those statements to be involuntary. Further, because Dr. Wortzel watched the video of the interview as part of his evaluation, the trial court ordered a new sanity evaluation andprecluded Dr. Wortzel from testifying at trial. The People then filed this interlocutory appeal.4 II. Standard of Review ¶19     Whether statements should be suppressed because they are involuntary presents a mixed question of law and fact. People v. McIntyre, 2014 CO 39, ¶13. As to the trial courtâs factual findings, we defer to them as long as they are supported by competent evidence. Id. We review the legal effect of those facts, however, de novo. Id. III. Analysis ¶20     The issue here is whether the investigators coerced Liggett into speaking with them so as to overbear his will. To resolve this issue, we first review the law surrounding voluntariness. We then apply this law to the facts of this case and conclude that the investigators did not coerce Liggett into making the statements but rather that Liggett spoke voluntarily. A. Law of Voluntariness and Coercion ¶21     In order for a defendantâs statements to be admissible, the due process clauses of both the United States and Colorado Constitutions require that they be voluntary. Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 877 (Colo. 2010). A statement is voluntary if it is ââtheproduct of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.ââ Id. (quoting People v. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 234 (Colo. 1982)). In contrast, a statement is involuntary if âcoercive police conduct played a significant role in inducing [the statement].â People v. Zadran, 2013 CO 69, ¶12. ¶22     To ascertain whether a defendantâs statements are involuntary because the policeâs conduct was coercive âso as to overbear the defendantâs will,â id. at ¶10, we must conduct a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that focuses on âthe significant details surrounding and inheringâ in the questioning, People v. Ramadan, 2013 CO 68, ¶20. As part of this analysis, we must contemplate ââboth the defendantâs ability to resist coercive pressures and the nature of the police conduct.ââ McIntyre, ¶17 (quoting Ramadan, ¶20). In particular, we consider several ânon-exhaustiveâ factors:
Id.(alterations in original) (quoting Zadran, ¶11). When analyzing these factors, we do not âperform a purely quantitative comparison and mechanically tally those factors suggestive of voluntariness against those indicative of coercion.â Id. at ¶20 n.2. Rather, we must consider these factors to inform the ultimate inquiry, which is whether the policeâs conduct was coercive ââso as to overbear the defendantâs will.ââ See id. at ¶16 (quoting Zadran, ¶10). ¶23     Having reviewed the law surrounding voluntariness, we now consider whether the trial court erred when it suppressed the statements Liggett made to the investigators during the interview on October 17, 2012. B. Application to This Case ¶24     After reviewing the record and considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Liggett spoke voluntarily. The record reflects that, although the majority of the factors weigh against a finding of voluntariness, the critical inquiry -- whether the investigators actually overbore Liggettâs will -- necessitates a different conclusion. Importantly, from the outset, Liggett wanted to talk and tell the investigators his version of events and his beliefs. In addition, while the investigators repeatedly accused Liggett of killing his mother, Liggett -- throughout the entire, lengthy interview -- resolutely denied that he had any role in her death. Thus, the investigators did not overbear Liggettâs will. As such, the trial court should not have suppressed his statements. ¶25     At the hearing on Liggettâs motion to suppress, the trial court made findings regarding each of the 13 factors. The trial court proceeded factor by factor, asking the parties to present arguments before it made findings. After the court made individual findings on each factor, it found the following findings to be of âparticular importâ: (1) the interview occurred during the very early morning hours; (2) the interview was long; (3) the investigators improperly denied Liggett counsel; and (4) Investigator Clark promised Liggett, âIâll help you out how I can.â The court then found that when Liggett âinvoked his right to counsel,â the scale tipped toward involuntariness, and consequently, it suppressed the statements Liggett made after he asked if Investigator Clark could call a public defender. ¶26     Admittedly, as the trial court found, most of the factors do militate toward a finding that the investigatorsâ conduct was coercive. Specifically, Liggett spoke during a custodial interrogation in a small room at the sheriffâs office and was not given the opportunity to confer with counsel. In addition, the interview was long, it occurred during the early morning hours, and Liggett had been awake for a lengthy period of time. The People have also conceded that the investigators violated Liggettâs Miranda rights.5 ¶27     Not all of the factors that the trial court relied on, however, indicate that the investigators were coercive. Although the trial court found that Investigator Clark made a promise to Liggett at the beginning of the interview when he stated, âIâll help you out how I can, okay?â this statement was never referenced again, and the investigators mentioned no specific guarantees to help Liggett. As such, Investigator Clarkâs vague promise was merely an âattempt[] to establish a friendly rapport with [Liggett].â See Zadran, ¶¶15â16 (noting that the trial court found the statement, âI think it would be in your best interest to talk to me,â was an implied promise but finding that this statement did not amount to coercion because it was meant to âestablish a friendly rapportâ). It was not a specific promise that induced Liggett into speaking with him. See id. at ¶¶17â19 (considering whether threats or promises were specific enough so as to overbear the defendantâs will and constitute coercion); see also People v. Parada, 188 Colo. 230, 232â34, 553 P.2d 1121, 1122â23 (1975) (finding that an implied promise that statements would not be used against the defendant in court rendered the subsequent statements involuntary); People v. Quintana, 198 Colo. 461, 462â64, 601 P.2d 350, 350â52 (1979) (finding that statements were involuntary where the sheriff promised, amongst other things, that he would talk to the defendantâs former employer about re-hiring him if the defendant talked with him). ¶28     In addition, as the trial court found, the investigators never -- in five and a half hours -- threatened Liggett. While the investigators were honest with Liggett about how they thought his mother died, they never bullied him into agreeing with them. The investigators also never successfully âexploited [Liggettâs] weaknesses or vulnerabilities.â Zadran, ¶16; cf. Ramadan, ¶25 (finding that the threat of deportation was a âuniquely terrifying prospectâ for the defendant, who had been âbrought to the United States for his safety after members of his family were killed by the Iraqi militaryâ). ¶29     As to Liggettâs âmental and physical condition,â the trial court found that there was âno obvious physical condition that would have negatively impacted [Liggettâs] ability to engage in this interview or interrogation.â The record supports this finding. Both Investigator Clark and Sergeant Peterson asked if Liggett was hurt in the car accident, and aside from a scrape on his arm, Liggett indicated that he felt fine. Regarding Liggettâs mental condition, the trial court found that some of his responses were âbizarre.â But it is also clear that Liggett understood where he was and the nature of the interrogation. He also followed the investigatorsâ questions. When a question did confuse him, he asked for clarification. For example, when Investigator Clark characterized Liggettâs living arrangement as âkind of walking on eggshells,â Liggett asked Investigator Clark to âexplain that.â ¶30     In response to Liggettâs questions and statements, the investigators, throughout the interview, calmly and politely spoke to Liggett, and thus the âmethod and style of the interrogationâ also cuts against a finding that the investigators were coercive. They never insulted Liggett nor used a derogatory tone. And, while Investigator Clark repeatedly asked Liggett to speak at his âlevel,â his tone was not condescending. He again was attempting to establish a friendly rapport with Liggett. In addition, although Sergeant Peterson asked questions that assumed that Liggett had killed his mother and engaged in repetitive questioning, his conduct was not coercive. Sergeant Peterson did not persuade Liggett to provide more information than he had already provided toInvestigator Clark or change his story. Cf. Raffaelli, 647 P.2d at 236 (finding substantial evidence in the record for the trial courtâs finding that statements were involuntary where the questions were repetitive, creating a stressful situation that resulted in a confession). To the contrary, Liggett resisted this tactic, even adamantly disagreeing that he had killed his mother. See Ramadan, ¶20 (stating that courts must consider âthe defendantâs ability to resist coercive pressuresâ). Namely, Sergeant Petersonâs last question was, âAre you gonna tell me why you had to kill her?â to which Liggett responded, âI didnât do it.â Thus, during the entire five-and-a-half-hour interview, other than providing additional details in response to the investigatorsâ questions, Liggett never changed his story that his mother committed suicide. Simply put, he never succumbed to the investigatorsâ suggestion that he killed his mother. ¶31     Liggett not only conversed freely with the investigators and resisted their tactics, but he even reinitiated the conversation several times throughout the morning. For example, during the first water break, Liggett was drinking a glass of water, and the investigators were talking in the hallway with the door to the interview room ajar. Liggett shouted to one of the investigators, â[G]entleman, one other thing. . . . I have one other thing to tell the detectives.â After about a minute, Investigator Clark returned to the room and asked Liggett, âYou said you wanted to talk to me?â Liggett responded, âYeah, uh, I wanted to say that, uh, my mom had, um, given me permission to drive her car and, uh, use her credit card for basically emergencies.â ¶32     Similarly, during the second water break, Liggett again volunteered information to Investigator Clark while they were waiting for another investigator, who had primarily been listening to the interview, to return: Investigator Clark: âI tell you what, my partner has to use the facilities. Do you have to use the facilities at all?â Liggett: âUm . . .â Investigator Clark: âNo?â Liggett: âI can wait.â Investigator Clark: âWeâll just wait for him to get back.â Liggett: âYou know, um . . . my psychiatrist and, um, therapist, um, can prove that I have a completely inculpable state of mind, also, and have had it for months.â Investigator Clark: âOkay. So, what does that mean to you?â Liggett: âIt means Iâm not criminally liable.â ¶33     In addition to the fact that Liggett indicated on several occasions that he wanted to speak with Investigator Clark, Sergeant Peterson repeatedly asked Liggett if he wanted to talk:
Crucially, approximately halfway through the interview, Sergeant Peterson asked Liggett, âI have a couple other questions if you donât mind, is that okay? Or do you want to stop?â Liggett responded, âNo, you can ask what youâre gonna ask.â So, Sergeant Peterson gave Liggett the option of ending the interview, but Liggett allowed him to continue asking questions. ¶34     Liggettâs eagerness to converse was evidenced even at the very beginning of his encounter with the police, at the site of the car crash. As the trial court found, shortly after the car crash, Liggett started talking to the officers, even asking them a question, âIf I can convince you that thereâs not probable cause that Iâm sane, do you press criminal charges?â These statements were not only unprompted, but the similarity between Liggettâs initial statements and the statements he made later during the interview suggests that Liggett wanted to tell the investigators very specific things, including: (1) he cannot tell right from wrong; (2) a court would find him incompetent; (3) everyone else has the ability to shape-change but him; (4) he is God; and (5) society and his mother, who had abused him, seek to repress him. Thus, even though Liggettâs first statements are not at issue in this appeal, they demonstrate Liggettâs willingness -Âeven a desire -- to talk, which indicates that the investigators did not overbear his will, and that his statements were voluntary. ¶35     That said, while some factors indicate that the investigatorsâ conduct was not coercive, as the trial court found, the majority of them do indicate that Investigator Clark and Sergeant Peterson were coercive. But â[v]oluntariness should not be ascertained through rote tabulation.â McIntyre, ¶20 n.2. Courts cannot simply âmechanically tallyâ the factors to determine whether a statement is involuntary. Id. The factors are ânon-exhaustive,â and courts must consider the totality of the circumstances of each case. Id. at ¶¶16â17. In determining whether a statement isvoluntary, courts must keep the reason for considering these factors -- the ultimate inquiry -- in mind: whether the policeâs conduct âactually overbore the defendantâs will.â Id. at ¶19 (stating that the âcritical issue in determining voluntariness . . . is whether [the interviewing officer] actually overbore the defendantâs willâ). In this instance, the trial court never considered the nexus between the investigatorsâ actions and Liggettâs statements to them. Simply put, it never considered whether the investigators actually overbore Liggettâs will. ¶36     When considering the ultimate inquiry, we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, Investigator Clark and Sergeant Peterson did not overbear Liggettâs will. Importantly, Liggett wanted to tell the investigators his story and his beliefs, including that: (1) he cannot tell right from wrong; (2) a court would find him incompetent; (3) everyone else has the ability to shape-change but him; (4) he is God; (5) society and his mother seek to repress him; and, most importantly, (6) his motherâs death was a suicide. Furthermore, while the investigators did get Liggett to provide several details regarding the previous couple of days, his version of events never changed during the entire five-and-a-half-hour interview. And even though the investigators assumed that Liggett had killed his mother, Liggett, to the very end, disagreed with them and denied any responsibility in causing her death. Thus, Liggettâs will was not overborne. As a result, we conclude that Liggett spoke voluntarily. IV. Conclusion ¶37     For the foregoing reasons, we hold that, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the investigators never overbore Liggettâs will, and thus his statements were voluntary. Accordingly, we reverse the trial courtâs suppression order and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 The trial court has limited the publicâs access to much of the evidence in this case, including the video and transcript of the interview at issue in this appeal. In deference to the trial court, we have omitted certain details that are not crucial to our analysis. 2 Throughout the entire interview, the investigators referred to Mr. Liggett by his first name, Ari. 3 The trial court dismissed the vehicular eluding charge at a preliminary hearing. 4 Section 16-12-102(2), C.R.S. (2014), allows the prosecution to file an interlocutory appeal after the trial court grants a motion to suppress evidence if the prosecution âcertifies to the judge who granted such motion and to the supreme court that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and the evidence is a substantial part of the proof of the charge pending against the defendant.â The People here filed such a certificate, and in their Opening Brief they indicated that the video of the interview on October 17, 2012, and Dr. Wortzelâs report are a substantial part of their case because they may seek to introduce them as rebuttal or impeachment evidence. 5 Statements obtained in violation of Miranda are not necessarily involuntary, but they are inadmissible in the Peopleâs case-in-chief. People v. N.A.S., 2014 CO 65, ¶ 17. These opinions are not final. They may be modified, changed or withdrawn in accordance with Rules 40 and 49 of the Colorado Appellate Rules. Changes to or modifications of these opinions resulting from any action taken by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court are not incorporated here. Colorado Supreme Court Opinions || September 22, 2014 Back |