Jose Luis Izaguirre v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 22, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2793
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any May 22 2020, 9:10 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Jay A. Rigdon George P. Sherman Rockhill Pinnick LLP Supervising Deputy Attorney Warsaw, Indiana General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jose Luis Izaguirre, May 22, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2793 v. Appeal from the Kosciusko Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff. David C. Cates, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 43D01-1904-F1-258

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 1 of 10 [1] Jose Luis Izaguirre (“Izaguirre”) was charged with three counts of child

molesting,1 each as a Level 1 felony. He now brings this discretionary

interlocutory appeal to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress, which

asked the trial court to exclude from evidence Izaguirre’s statements made

during police questioning. Izaguirre raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether he sufficiently understood English to make a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights; and

II. Whether the presence of his wife (“W.I.”) during his interrogation made his confession involuntary.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] Izaguirre moved to the United States from Mexico when he was thirteen years

old and attended school in the United States. Tr. Vol. 2 at 7, 25. Around the

age of twenty-two, he began a relationship with W.I. Id. at 6. Izaguirre and

W.I. lived together and were eventually married in Warsaw, Indiana. Id. at 6-7.

W.I. had three children, and they lived with her and Izaguirre. Id. at 7.

Izaguirre enrolled in an English class in Warsaw but withdrew from the class

because he thought it was “stupid” because he “already knew everything they

were teaching . . . .” Id. at 8. Izaguirre spoke both English and Spanish at

1 See Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 2 of 10 home, but he spoke English more often. Id. He also spoke English to his

Spanish-speaking friends who understood English. Id. at 8-9. Izaguirre would

watch television shows and movies that were broadcast in English. Id. at 9.

[4] On March 29, 2019, one of W.I.’s children (“Child”), who was less than

fourteen years old, claimed Izaguirre had sexually assaulted her. Id. W.I. and

Child were interviewed by Child Protective Services that day. Id. at 14.

Warsaw Police Department Detective Paul Heaton (“Detective Heaton”)

investigated Child’s allegations. He went to Izaguirre’s residence to speak with

Izaguirre, and they conversed in English. Id. at 15. Detective Heaton then took

Izaguirre to the Warsaw Police Department for an interview. Id. at 17. At no

point during these conversations did Detective Heaton and Izaguirre speak in

any language other than English. Id. at 18. The entrance to the police

department displayed a sign advising that statements would be video recorded.

Id.

[5] During the interview, Izaguirre was not restrained, and Detective Heaton

provided him with a glass of water. Id. Detective Heaton told Izaguirre he

could stop answering questions at any time. Id. at 21. Detective Heaton asked

if Izaguirre had ever been represented by an attorney, and Izaguirre responded

affirmatively and also indicated he had prior contact with the criminal justice

system. Id. at 20-21.

[6] Before questioning Izaguirre, Detective Heaton advised Izaguirre of his

Miranda rights. Id. at 18-19; State’s Ex. 3 at 15:33:43-15:36:25. Detective

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Heaton told Izaguirre to ask any questions he had, and Detective Heaton would

answer them. Tr. Vol. 2 at 21. Izaguirre asked several questions as Detective

Heaton read Izaguirre’s Miranda rights and when he did, Detective Heaton

answered questions about each Miranda right “one by one.” Id. at 19. After

Detective Heaton explained each Miranda right, Izaguirre said he understood

that right. Id. At no point did Izaguirre ask Detective Heaton to read the

Miranda rights in Spanish or request an interpreter. Id. at 22.

[7] During the first thirty minutes of the interview, Izaguirre asked Detective

Heaton several times about where W.I. was. Id. at 21-22; State’s Ex. 3 at

15:46:53, 15:50:36. Detective Heaton asked Izaguirre if he wanted to talk to

W.I., and Izaguirre said that he did. Tr. Vol. 2 at 21-22; State’s Ex. 3 at 15:47:08.

Detective Heaton explained to Izaguirre that W.I. was not available at the time

because she was at the Fort Wayne Sexual Assault Center so Child could be

tested to determine if she was pregnant. Tr. Vol. 2 at 22; State’s Ex. 3 at

15:50:45. W.I. returned to Warsaw from Fort Wayne about three hours after

Izaguirre asked to talk to her. Tr. Vol. 2 at 22.

[8] After explaining Izaguirre’s rights, Detective Heaton asked if Izaguirre was

willing to talk with him. State’s Ex. 3 at 15:36:24. Izaguirre replied, “It

depends,” which Detective Heaton understood to mean that it depended on

what questions Detective Heaton was going to ask. Tr. Vol. 2 at 20; State’s Ex. 3

at 15:36:27. Detective Heaton explained the purpose of the interview and told

Izaguirre that he believed Izaguirre had engaged in sexual activity with Child.

Izaguirre repeatedly denied the allegations. State’s Ex. 3 at 15:36:38-15:51:10.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 4 of 10 [9] Before bringing W.I. into the interview room, Detective Heaton asked her some

clarifying questions based on what Izaguirre had told Detective Heaton up to

that point. Tr. Vol. 2 at 22. However, Detective Heaton did not ask W.I. about

the best plan or strategy to question Izaguirre. Id. Detective Heaton told W.I.

that the conversation between her and Izaguirre would be recorded. Id. at 12.

Detective Heaton walked W.I. into the interview room, and she sat down.

State’s Ex. 3 at 19:04:51. Detective Heaton told W.I and Izaguirre, “Not to

touch . . . no fighting, no nothing; you guys can have your own time here for a

second.” Id. at 19:04:47-19:05:01. After Detective Heaton left the room, W.I.

asked Izaguirre, “Why” and “tell me why you did it,” and then they began

talking in Spanish. Id. at 19:04:51; 19:05:36-19:06:09; 19:06:24-19:06:44. W.I.

also said, “She was your baby.” State’s Ex. 3 at 19:06:24-19:06:44. W.I. was

emotional yet composed during the discussion, crying softly on occasion, and

usually maintaining a conversational tone. She never screamed or yelled and

raised her voice only two or three times.

[10] After about twenty minutes, W.I. left the interview room. Id. at 19:24:30. Less

than a minute later, Detective Heaton and W.I. re-entered the interview room,

and Detective Heaton questioned Izaguirre for around eighteen minutes. Id. at

19:25:19-19:43:16. During this time, W.I. remained calm, usually acting as a

translator between Detective Heaton and Izaguirre, although Izaguirre and

Detective Heaton sometimes communicated directly in English. Izaguirre

eventually admitted he had often engaged in sexual behavior with Child,

beginning six years earlier, when Child was eight years old, and the family lived

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 5 of 10 in Muncie. State’s Ex. 3 at 19:31:25, 19:34:20. At first, Izaguirre would rub

Child’s genitals with his hand, and as Child grew older, Izaguirre would insert

his penis into Child’s anus. State’s Ex. 3 at 19:31:30-19:31:45; Id. at 19:28:35-

19:28:35.

[11] On April 1, 2019, the State charged Izaguirre with three counts of Level 1

felony child molesting. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 9-10. On September 9, 2019,

Izaguirre filed a motion to suppress his confession, and on October 23, 2019,

the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Id. at 33, 39. On November 14,

2019, Izaguirre filed a motion that asked the trial court to certify its order for an

interlocutory appeal, and on November 15, 2019, the trial court granted the

request. Id. at 6. On December 20, 2019, we granted Izaguirre’s motion to

accept jurisdiction over his interlocutory appeal. Id. at 53. On January 3, 2020,

Izaguirre filed his notice of appeal. Notice of Appeal, Odyssey. We will provide

additional facts as necessary.

Discussion and Decision [12] We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the same way we

review other sufficiency issues. Sanders v. State, 989 N.E.2d 332, 334 (Ind.

2013). There must be substantial evidence of probative value to support the

ruling of the trial court. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider

conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We also

consider undisputed evidence favorable to the defendant. Harris v. State, 60

N.E.3d 1070, 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. We review the trial

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 6 of 10 court’s legal conclusions de novo. State v. Brown, 70 N.E.3d 331, 335 (Ind.

2017).

I. Knowing Waiver of Miranda Rights [13] Izaguirre argues that he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights because he

did not understand Detective Heaton’s English rendition of Izaguirre’s Miranda

rights. A waiver of Miranda rights is not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent if

the warnings are not provided in a language a defendant understands. Morales

v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1260, 1266-67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Due to the various

ways a person may be warned under Miranda, a claim that advisements were

inadequate requires that the State prove the warnings were given with sufficient

clarity.” State v. Keller, 845 N.E.2d 154, 162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[14] We reject Izaguirre’s claim that he did not knowingly waive his Miranda rights.

Even though Spanish is Izaguirre’s first language, he is capable of

communicating in English and has done so for years, both at home and with

friends. Izaguirre dropped out of a local English class because he already

“knew everything they were teaching.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Izaguirre spoke English

at home more often than Spanish, he spoke English to his Spanish-speaking

friends who understood English, and he would watch English language

television shows and movies. Id. at 8-9. When Izaguirre told Detective Heaton

that he did not understand his Miranda rights, Detective Heaton reviewed each

right again, one at a time, providing detailed explanations of each right. Id. at

18-19; State’s Ex. 3 at 15:33:43-15:36:25. After each explanation, Izaguirre told

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 7 of 10 Detective Heaton that he understood that particular right. Tr. Vol. 2 at 19;

State’s Ex. 3 at 15:33:43 to 15:36:25. At no point did Izaguirre ask Detective

Heaton to read the Miranda rights in Spanish or request an interpreter. Tr. Vol.

2 at 22. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Izaguirre’s

argument that his confession should be suppressed because he did not

knowingly waive his Miranda rights.

II. Voluntariness [15] Izaguirre contends his confession was involuntary because the State used W.I.

to pressure Izaguirre into confessing that he had molested Child. Izaguirre does

not cite specific behaviors or statements by W.I. as being coercive, but he

instead argues that the State created an inherently coercive atmosphere by

allowing W.I., the mother of Child, to come into the interview room while

Detective Heaton questioned Izaguirre.

[16] When a defendant challenges the admission of a confession, the State must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was given voluntarily.

Strickland v. State, 119 N.E.3d 140, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. We

review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession, focusing on

whether the confession was free, voluntary, and not induced by violence,

threats, promises, or other improper influences. Id. We will affirm the trial

court’s decision if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support

it. Id. We do not reweigh the evidence, and we consider any conflicting

evidence most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 8 of 10 [17] W.I.’s presence in the interview room did not render Izaguirre’s confession

involuntary. First, there is no evidence the State hatched a plan with W.I. to

use W.I. to intimidate Izaguirre into confessing. Indeed, it was Izaguirre’s idea

to bring W.I. into the interview room. State’s Ex. 3 at 15:46:53, 15:47:08. It is

true that when W.I. entered the interview the first time, she asked Izaguirre two

uncomfortable questions: “Why?” and “tell me why you did it.” Id. at

19:04:15-19:06:44. However, W.I. remained surprisingly calm and composed,

never screaming or yelling at Izaguirre. W.I.’s behavior and demeanor were

the same after she re-entered the interview room, this time accompanied by

Detective Heaton. When Detective Heaton and Izaguirre were not speaking

English to each other, W.I. acted as a translator. Moreover, none of Izaguirre’s

behavior during the interview indicated that he was emotionally distressed to a

degree that made his confession involuntary. Izaguirre did not pace, fidget,

shout, withdraw, or act out in any manner. The tone and timbre of his voice

remained consistent. The totality of these circumstances established that W.I.’s

presence in the interview room did not create an inherently coercive

atmosphere. Thus, the totality of the circumstances show that Izaguirre’s

confession was free, voluntary, and not induced by violence, threats, promises,

or other improper influences. See Strickland, 119 N.E.3d at 148. Accordingly,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 9 of 10 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Izaguirre’s motion to

suppress.2

[18] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Brown, J., concur.

2 Additionally, Izaguirre argues that the recording of his statement violated his rights under the marital privilege statute because he was not advised that his conversation with Detective Heaton would be recorded. See Ind. Code § 34-46-3-1. We reject this argument because the marital privilege is not grounds to exclude evidence in child molesting cases. See Ind. Code § 31-32-11-1; Baggett v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1244, 1245 (Ind. 1987). Also, the marital privilege would not bar W.I. from testifying about Izaguirre’s confession because the privilege may be waived by either spouse. Glover v. State, 836 N.E.2d 414, 422 (Ind. 2005).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2793 | May 22, 2020 Page 10 of 10