What is a Motion to Suppress Statements?
A motion to suppress statements is a defendant’s request to a trial court to exclude certain statements made by the defendant from being presented in the trial. When a statement is excluded from evidence, it cannot be considered by the judge or jury in deciding whether the defendant is guilty or innocent of the crime charged.
A motion to suppress statements is typically filed before a criminal trial begins and after the prosecution discloses the contents of the statements it intends to use at trial. A defendant files the motion to suppress statements to object to the admission of particular statements that the prosecution has disclosed as well as to preserve the issue for appeal in the event that it is not decided before the case proceeds to trial. In most cases, a pretrial evidentiary hearing will be held so that the defendant can establish the factual basis for the motion. The defendant has the burden of proving the facts to support his or her motion to suppress statements by a preponderance of the evidence.
A party seeking to exclude evidence must make specific objections to the admission of the evidence , and the objection must be based on legal rules or principles. Such objections include relevance, hearsay, possible unfair prejudice to the defendant or public policy grounds such as the privilege against self incrimination. The court will likely strike the portion of the statement to which the objection applies and will then decide whether to exclude the statement in its entirety.
If the court agrees with the defendant’s arguments and excludes the statements, the prosecution cannot use the evidence at trial. If the court denies the motion to suppress, the prosecution can present the statements at trial. On appeal, the appellate court will review the motion to suppress statements under an "abuse of discretion" standard, and not under a "de novo" standard. In other words, the appellate court will only reverse the pre trial exclusion of statements if they determine that the motion to suppress was erroneously decided.
Legal Reasons to Suppress
When seeking to suppress a statement, there are various legal grounds upon which a motion may be brought. In reviewing common legal grounds for granting suppression of statements, the following should be considered: Constitutional Grounds for Review: A common legal ground for movant to seek statement suppression is that a suspect’s constitutional rights have been violated. A common violation of constitutional rights, in regards to the taking of a statement is that the suspect was not administrated their Miranda rights, or was unaware that they were subject to custodial interrogation. The right to be informed of your Miranda rights is set out by the Fifth Amendment. As further developed, it is well settled law that for Miranda warnings to be effective in curtailing self-incrimination, law enforcement must inform a suspect before questioning that they have the right to remain silent and that anything said can and will be used against them in court. It is also well settled law that if a suspect is in custody, not free to leave, they have the right to an attorney being present before answering questions, even if they later refuse to answer questions in his presence. Further, it must be shown that a suspect had the ability to understand their rights and their ability to understand they were talking to a police officer, capable of taking action against them. As long as these prerequisites are met, even if the police did not record the interview, as long as they have shown that the suspect was made aware of his Miranda rights and knowingly waived the right be speaking to police, and as long as the suspect was not, in fact, in police custody, the courts have been hesitant to suppress statements given to police. It is important to note, however, that these rights need not be read to the suspect verbatim, so long as the suspect is made aware of his rights and has understood them, and knowingly waives that right. Further, in order to be effectively informed of his rights, as noted in Miranda, "the defendant must be adequately and effectively warned that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). However, even beyond these potential violations, convictions have been overturned based merely on the fact that involved officers were so incompetent in their execution of a Miranda interview that the courts believed that the confession could not have been voluntary. Additionally, the particular type of crime, in this case, the murder of a child, which was highly publicized at the time and the high public pressure on the police department to solve this crime might have had a coercive impact on the defendant’s mind. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the pressures of the environment at the police station only heightened defendant’s tendency to behave in an adverse way towards the police, and thus, his statement should be suppressed by the court." (People v. Boyette, 29 Cal. App. 4th 388, 392 (1994). While there is no requirement that statements be recorded, a practice which is currently being tested in the courts, it is important for any statement or confession to be supported by some corroborating evidence, such as the location of the body, precise actions or extraneous details not known about the case. The police officer or interrogating police officer’s testimony as to the voluntariness of a confession is subject to independent judicial review. The trial judge should decide whether the defendant in fact made the confession, based on a totality of the circumstances, and such findings will be upheld if supported by sufficient evidence, barring error or abuse of discretion. See also People v. Beagle, 39 Cal.3d 419, 434 (1985); People v. Kelly (Norris), 1 Cal. 3d 493, 508 (1970); People v. Hunt, 10 Cal. App. 3d 673, 679 (1970). (See, California Criminal Law Practice and Procedure, Law and Motion Practice, by Matthew RG Grogan, Chapter 78 (2014) Stabley, Cause No. S1-08-CV-0053 (Ind. 2009)). At least on its face, there is no requirement that the court observe the actual interview. As a result, reviewing courts have often deferred to interviewing Officer on the question of whether defendant’s statement was voluntary. Decisions establishing a requirement that courts observe interviews have been rejected, as an interpretation unwarranted by either Supreme Court or State Court precedent: (e.g., People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1084, 1098; Ligill v. State (2008) 550 S.E.2d 438, 446; Wade v. United States (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 236.)
The Motion Process
For those reasons, a motion to suppress statements, confessions, and admissions is filed to keep evidence from the jury when it is illegally obtained. It is considered a pretrial motion to suppress.
The procedure for filing a motion to suppress statements, confessions, and admissions begins by the rule 12.2 designation. Rule 12.2 designations are very important as they show the state that certain statements are going to be challenged in the judge. Motions to suppress statement have to have specific citations in them. Usually referred to as citation motion, it cites precedent case law. The motion to suppress must be filed early in the litigation process. There is a deadline for motions to suppress statements. That is all designated in the rule 12.2. The rule 12.2 requires the defendant to file a notice of intent to offer a confession at the time of arraignment. The rule 12.2 gives the judge discretion to allow a motion to suppress statements to be filed later.
In a motion to suppress statements, the defendant has the right to a preliminary hearing or probable cause determination on all statements that were obtained prior to arrest. The defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before a motion to suppress statements will be granted. An evidentiary hearing is one where the judge considers evidence. If the judge finds that the statement was made involuntarily or illegally obtained, then the judge may grant the motion and exclude the statement from evidence when the case goes to a jury trial. The evidentiary hearing will sometimes determine if the confession was a product of coercion. If the judge finds that the confession was a product of coercion, then the judge will grant the motion to suppress.
Sometimes a motion to suppress statements is a pretrial motion contained in the indictment. However, the defendant can also file a motion to suppress statements outside of the indictment, but with leave of court. If the motion to suppress statements is filed without leave of court, then the defendant has not complied with rule 12.2. Because of that, the court will not grant the motion to suppress statements outside of the required timetable.
Further, while filing a motion in limine at trial to suppress statements is possible, it is insufficient to prove the illegal obtaining of a confession. Exclusion of a statement based upon a motion in limine is a significantly difficult task. There are no requirements for filing a motion in limine, so it can be filed at pretty much any time.
The procedure for filing a motion to suppress statements is very important in cases where they have been illegally obtained. The defendant’s attorney must file a motion to suppress statements, confessions, admissions immediately in order for the evidence to be excluded from the jury at trial. The motion to suppress statements, confessions, and admissions are very important in a criminal defense that contains statements made to police. Further, the motion to suppress statements has deadlines that must be followed for the evidence to be kept out at trial. A defense attorney needs to be knowledgeable in how to file a motion to suppress, and the deadlines to file a motion to suppress.
Evidence Considerations in a Hearing
The evidence that a judge will look at when deciding a motion to suppress always includes the record created at the motion hearing. The judge is going to listen carefully to everything said in court by both the prosecution and the defense in order to determine if the defendant is entitled to have his or her statement that was made to the police excluded from evidence.
The prosecutor will try to give the judge a lot of reasons to not suppress the defendant’s statement. For example, the prosecutor can point out that the defendant voluntarily came to the station to be interviewed, that he or she was not handcuffed, that the defendant agreed to talk, that he or she was read their rights from Miranda warning card and so on. The prosecutor, through the testimony of the police officer, will try to convince the judge that the defendant was not coerced or coerced into confessing to the crime.
The defense will try to find something in the police report or the testimony to show that this confession was somehow false or was made because the defendant was coerced by the police and that his or her confession was not voluntary.
The judge will then make a decision one way or the other. In making his or her decision, the Judge will consider the evidence presented at the hearing. If the Judge does not believe that the defendant made a confession and simply does not believe the police officer’s testimony about the defendant’s confession, then the Judge may find that the confession of the defendant was involuntary.
The Judge will also consider the police report and whether or not there is anything on that report that contradicts the police officer’s testimony about how and what the defendant said. If the Judge cannot believe the police officer based both on the police report and the officer’s testimony, then the judge may find that the confession did not take place the way the policeman said it did. The Judge may also believe the policeman, but still find that the confession was the result of a police tactic that overbore the defendant’s will, and thus, involuntary.
After the Judge decides whether or not the defendant’s statement should be admitted if the case goes to trial, he then puts how and why he made that decision down in a written decision.
Effects of a Suppressing Motion
If a motion to suppress evidence or statements is successful, the impact on your case could vary depending on what evidence was actually suppressed. For example, if the evidence suppressed was a statement you provided to law enforcement, this may significantly impact the prosecutor’s ability to prove the case against you. If the prosecutor was relying on your admission of guilt, without any other evidence, your the case may be dismissed. However, if the prosecutor maintained other evidence to prove his claim that you committed the crime , you may still face prosecution. On the other hand, if the motion was to suppress physical evidence or other statements that are not critical to the prosecution’s theory of the case, the defense may receive some relief in terms of impacting the potential penalty. In many cases, if a motion to suppress is granted, it can result in the dismissal of charges against the accused or, at the very least, a reduction in the severity of these charges. It is also possible that the prosecution will choose to avoid pursuing prosecution if important evidence is excluded from consideration.
Motions in Practice and Precedent
An illustrative case is State v. Salinas, 2013-NMSC-046. In that case, a defendant was granted a new trial in 1999, based on errors relating to an improper statement made to law enforcement agents. The New Mexico Supreme Court had previously held that when defendant’s charge was reduced from a capital offense to a lesser included one, there is no implicit waiver of the right to appeal an order vacating the previous conviction. Upon remand, the lower court again denied his motion to suppress and a panel of the court of appeals reversed. The state petitioned for certiorari and upon receiving it, the court of appeals issued a modified opinion, explaining that the legal standard for making a statement spontaneously admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule is that "an utterance or act by a participant . . . must be a natural reaction to an exciting event." State v. Salinas, 2016-NMCA-020, ¶ 30. In this amended decision, the court of appeals concluded that the statement provided by the defendant did not meet the requirements of the res gestae exception and that there is no plain error. However, the court stated that the New Mexico Supreme Court specifically mandated that the issue of whether a particular statement fits the res gestae exception has to be decided by a fact-finder. As a result, the court of appeals remanded the case and remedy back to the lower court again to determine whether Mr. Salinas’s statement in question to the police officers falls into the category of being a spontaneous statement. Salinas, 2016-NMCA-020, ¶ 33. In response to the remand, the lower court still ruled that the statement was admissible and that it satisfies the spontaneous statement doctrine, but the result will be left up to the New Mexico Supreme Court’s review for interpretation of the res gestae exception analysis.
Other notable cases include State v. Platero, 2009-NMCA- Rideout, 2008-NMCA-102, where the defendant contended that the statement to the police which was used to obtain his arrest warrant should have been suppressed because it contained false information. Toward the end, the court of appeals held that the correct standard for determining whether a search warrant should be invalidated based on falsehoods in an affidavit or application for the warrant is the "inclusion of statements which were false when made either because they were known to be untrue or were made with reckless disregard for the truth." 2009-NMCA-0425. In State v. Velasquez, 2002-NMCA-096, the defendant contended that his rights were violated and his statements and property should therefore have been suppressed under Miranda and Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. After controversy with the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, this court held that the defendant’s consent to search the trailer and backpack was voluntary.
A Guide for Defense Lawyers
As the old saying goes, "information is power." So, get as much information as possible. Prior to filing a motion to suppress a statement, defense counsel must take the time to make notes about the case and the underlying circumstances related to the confession. These notes will serve as the basis for questions of the Defendant on the motion and for any likely cross-examination questions of the officer when the 402 hearing is held on the issue.
The motion to suppress should have an attached request for discovery, seeking police reports and a transcription of the audio recording of the statement. The police reports may contain very important information on the timing of statements, what was said prior to the confession, and whether the officer at the scene or a desk officer completed paper work, etc. The transcription may highlight inconsistencies in what was said , not noted in the transcribed report. This may also provide insight as to whether the officers may have tampered with the report. Other times, there may be a countervailing fingerprint from someone else on the report.
In addition to the discovery request and affidavit, the motion will have proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. This is important, because these proposed findings and conclusions are what the trial judge will consider when deciding the motion. After arguing the motion to suppress statement, the Court will typically at least do the following: (1) grant the motion; (2) deny the motion and allow the statement in; or (3) order testimony and hold a 402 hearing in the case.
If a defense attorney is not thoroughly prepared and doesn’t have information to present to the trial judge, it is unlikely that their motion to suppress statement will be successful, in part or in whole.