Filed 8/18/26 P. v. Soriano CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B339792 (Super. Ct. No. TA158363)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
RICARDO SORIANO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Ricardo Soriano appeals after a jury convicted him of willful, deliberate, and premeditated first degree murder (Pen. Code §§ 187, subd. (a), 189; count 1) and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury also found true a firearms allegation as to count 1 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 29 years to life plus 8 months.
Appellant contends the admission of a witness’s interrogation deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. We will affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At about 5:00 a.m. on June 19, 2022, police responded to a reported shooting. They found the victim Hector Herrera slumped in the driver’s seat of a white BMW. Herrera died of a gunshot wound to the chest. No shell casings were recovered in the car or the surrounding area. Law enforcement never recovered the murder weapon.
On August 4, 2022, Carolyn Serrano voluntarily spoke with law enforcement after they had contacted her. Serrano said Herrera dropped her off in an alley by the Mobil station where she worked. “[A] cool little few minutes after . . . he left [she] heard gunshots.” Serrano said she did not see what happened to Herrera after he drove away. Serrano denied that someone ran up to the car when Herrera dropped her off.
During the interview, Serrano stated she “got in a program and . . . got sober, got my kids back.” At one point, she spoke with one of her children on the phone. Serrano later said, “I work for my money and I take care of my kids. . . . I take care of my business, my kids, and that’s it.”
Both before and after the August 4 interview, Serrano spoke with appellant, who was in jail. During those calls, appellant coached Serrano on what to say, and Serrano debriefed appellant on the interview.
After listening to jail calls, law enforcement obtained a warrant and arrested Serrano for murder. On September 12, 2022, Detectives Brandon Bourgeois and Sarah Callian again interviewed Serrano, whose handcuffs were removed.
At the beginning of the interview, Serrano stated she had not been advised of her rights before. Detective Bourgeois then
3
properly advised Serrano pursuant to Miranda1, and Serrano said she understood. Serrano maintained she did not know what happened to Herrera after he dropped her off. Detective Callian told Serrano they had evidence showing that Serrano knew. The following exchange occurred:
“Detective Bourgeois: Who’s Blackie [a name appellant went by]?
“Serrano: ‘Cause I didn’t shoot him. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay, then who did? “Serrano: I don’t know. “Detective Bourgeois: Because right now you’re sitting here and eventually the person that shot him is going to be sitting here as well.
“Serrano: Okay. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay. You look equally as responsible. You may not have pulled the trigger, but somebody did and you know who did.”
Serrano denied knowing who shot Herrera or who “Blackie”
was. When confronted with the jail calls, Serrano stated “Blackie” was her friend. Detective Bourgeois said, “This is really kind of an opportunity for you . . . [t]o help yourself out, okay?” Their exchange continued:
“Serrano: Help myself out with what? I didn’t do nothing. “Detective Bourgeois: When you help out a killer- “Serrano: If you guys have proof then why am I here? “Detective Bourgeois: -after they killed somebody, when you help out a killer after they kill somebody-
“Serrano: I didn’t help nobody out. “Detective Bourgeois: You’re full of it.
1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694]
(Miranda).
4
“Serrano: I didn’t help nobody out.” Detective Bourgeois showed Serrano a picture of appellant and asked who it was. Serrano said she did not know. Detective Bourgeois and Serrano disagreed as to whether Serrano had “fed [them] a bunch of bullshit.” Serrano said, “I was fucking honest like- up to the point, like- And after that-” Detective Callian interjected:
“Detective Callian: [Crosstalk] We can agree to disagree on that one, okay? We have you here and right now we’re giving you the opportunity-
“Serrano: To what? “Detective Callian: To tell us what happened from your side, okay? Now this is going to determine a lot of what’s going to happen with you. The more you cooperate, the better it is going to be for you.
“Serrano: You mean the more I snitch, right? “Detective Callian: I’m not asking you to snitch, I’m asking you to cooperate.
“Serrano: [Crosstalk] No, that’s basically what I’m doing here. No, I’m not.
“Detective Callian: But you have two kids at home. “Serrano: Yeah, I know, they have a dad though. He got them.
“Detective Callian: Okay. “Detective Bourgeois: Carolyn, this is an arrest warrant.
Okay? It’s been signed by a judge.
“Serrano: Okay. “Detective Bourgeois: For you. Okay? For the violation of murder, okay?
“Serrano: Okay. “Detective Bourgeois: Your bail’s two million dollars.
Okay? It’s not a fucking joke, dude.
5
“Serrano: I’m not saying it’s a joke. “Detective Bourgeois: You’re treating it like it’s a joke. “Serrano: Yes. I’m really not. I’m really not. Okay. “Detective Bourgeois: Carolyn, what happened, dude? “Serrano: So what are we doing? “Detective Bourgeois: We’re giving you an opportunity to share what really happened.
“Serrano: I’m not sharing anything. I’m not saying shit and I want a lawyer.
“Detective Bourgeois: Okay. That’s fine. “Detective Callian: Alright. “Detective Bourgeois: So, I’m not going to ask you any more questions, okay? I want you to just sit quiet and I want you to hear me out. Alright? We have you over in the area based off your own statements. Just listen to me.
“Serrano: I work there. “Detective Bourgeois: Just listen to me because you said you want your lawyer, okay? I want you to sit quietly and we’re going to respect your right, okay? We have you obviously over in the area by your own statements. We have Blackie over there by his own cell phone records, and quite frankly, the amount of conversations that you have back and forth with him. We have jail call recordings with you damn near on a daily basis, okay? Where you talked to him the day we interviewed you. Before we interviewed you. Okay? And he got panicked. We are trying to give you an opportunity, okay? To share with us what you obviously know, but you refuse to because of the whole snitching.
“Serrano: What I know is- “Detective Bourgeois: Uh-uh- you got to listen. Okay?
Again, I’m trying to respect “Serrano: Yeah sorry.
6
“Detective Bourgeois: -your rights, okay? We’re here trying to give you an opportunity, okay? To share what really happened to help yourself out. But you’re sitting there just cold, really kind of, I really don’t give a fuck attitude. Okay? An arrest warrant has been signed by a judge. That’s what you’re doing here, okay? We’re giving you the opportunity to share with us what you do know. What we know you know, but you refuse to do so, which is fine. That’s your obligation, that’s your- that’s your choice. Okay? So going forward, you’re going to get booked, [l]ike I said, for murder.
“Serrano: Yeah. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay? If at any point you decide, okay, that you do want to maybe talk to us, okay? And I really want you to think hard about this one, okay? Let the jailer know to call us, okay? And we’ll gladly come down and talk to you.
“Serrano: I don’t want a lawyer no more. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay. You what? “Serrano: I don’t want a lawyer no more. “Detective Bourgeois: You don’t want a lawyer no more? “Serrano: No. “Detective Bourgeois: What does that mean? “Serrano: It means, do you know who Blackie is? “Detective Bourgeois: Well, that’s what we’re sitting here asking you. So listen, hold on-
“Serrano: But do you know who Blackie is? “Detective Bourgeois: Before we do that, okay? Do you remember what I just read you as far as your rights?
“Serrano: Yup. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay, I’m going to ask you again. “Serrano: You know who that is though, right? “Detective Bourgeois: Do you agree? Hold on. Do you agree to waive those rights?
7
“Serrano: Yeah. “Detective Bourgeois: Okay. “Detective Callian: And you want to talk to us? “Serrano: Yes.” Serrano indicated she was afraid of appellant. Serrano told the detectives that appellant ran up and shot Herrera as Herrera was dropping Serrano off. After shooting Herrera, appellant pointed the firearm at her. Serrano stated appellant was driving a green Honda. Video surveillance had captured a green vehicle in the area of the shooting shortly after 4:00 a.m.
On November 30, 2022, police again interviewed Serrano after she reached out. Serrano said someone called “Temper,” not appellant, shot Herrera. Serrano said she “felt comfortable enough” to speak because she heard Temper was “PC’d up.”
At trial, Serrano testified that her August 4 account was the accurate one. As to the September 12 interview, Serrano “said what I felt like was gonna get me out of there.” Serrano had been romantically involved with both Herrera and appellant.
Using a Google geofence warrant, police found an account with the name Ricardo Daniel and email blackeevx3@gmail.com. The Google data included photos of appellant and Serrano together, as well as a video of the victim Herrera in his vehicle shortly after the shooting. Law enforcement identified appellant as the person who filmed that video based on the red shoes worn. On the night of the shooting, the device connected to the Google account traveled to the area of the Mobil station where Serrano worked and “lingered within the area for a little bit.” The device’s path of travel then traced the victim’s path.
On July 1, 2022, Serrano sent a message to a person named Vanessa: “Hey girl blacky wanted me to ask u if u can bring the Honda he left parked outside ur trailer and his toy to my house I’m a take care of his bail.”
8
DISCUSSION
“A defendant lacks standing to complain of the violation of a third party’s Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination .” (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 965.) “A defendant may assert a violation of his or her own right to due process of the law and a fair trial based upon third party witness coercion, however, if the defendant can establish that trial evidence was coerced or rendered unreliable by prior coercion and that the admission of this evidence would deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” (People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 452-453 (Williams).)
Assuming appellant has not forfeited his claim by failing to object below, the claim fails on the merits because Serrano’s September 12 statement was not coerced.
“‘A statement is involuntary if it is not the product of “‘a rational intellect and free will.’”’” (People v. McWhorter (2009) 47 Cal.4th 318, 346 (McWhorter).) “When ‘assessing allegedly coercive police tactics, “[t]he courts have prohibited only those psychological ploys which, under all the circumstances, are so coercive that they tend to produce a statement that is both involuntary and unreliable,”’ and have explained that ‘[w]hether a statement is voluntary depends upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.’” (People v. Wilson (2024) 16 Cal.5th 874, 918 (Wilson).)
We independently review whether Serrano’s statement was coerced. (See Wilson, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 918; McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 346 [voluntariness of tape-recorded statement subject to independent review].)
Appellant contends the police violated Miranda. We agree.
During the September 12 custodial interrogation, Serrano invoked her right to counsel. But Detective Bourgeois continued to speak with her. His discussion of the evidence against
9
appellant and Serrano constituted interrogation because it was “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response . . . .” (Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301 [64 L.Ed.2d 297]; Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477 [68 L.Ed.2d 378].)
However, a statement “may be uncoerced” even if it was elicited in violation of Miranda. (People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1, 24.) In some cases, “deliberately continuing to question a suspect after he has invoked his Miranda rights may undermine a defendant’s free will by signaling that ‘no’ is not an acceptable answer.” (Ibid.) But, here, Detective Bourgeois signaled precisely the opposite. He indicated, twice, that he would respect Serrano’s rights and cut her off when she attempted to speak. Bourgeois also indicated that refusing to share what she knew was her “obligation” and “choice.” Bourgeois’s relatively brief entreaty did not break Serrano’s free will.
Appellant also cites the “‘implied promises of leniency’” the detectives made. However, “‘[t]here is nothing improper in confronting a suspect with the predicament he is in, or with an offer to refrain from prosecuting the suspect if he will cooperate with the police investigation.’” (People v. Badgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 355.) Our Supreme Court has “‘never held . . . that an offer of leniency in return for cooperation with the police renders a third party statement involuntary . . . .’” (People v. Smith (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1134, 1170.)
Appellant highlights Detective Callian’s comment that Serrano had “two kids at home.” But this comment simply confronted Serrano with her predicament. Nor did Serrano appear fazed by the comment, as she replied, “Yeah, I know, they have a dad though. He got them.”
Appellant notes the detectives repeatedly accused Serrano of lying. But the police can “exhort a suspect to tell the truth and repeatedly express that they believe a suspect is lying.” (People
10
v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 791; see also People v. Spencer (2018) 5 Cal.5th 642, 674 [repeated accusations of lying did not “rise to the threshold necessary to taint the interrogation as unlawful”].)
Appellant argues the detectives used deception by telling “Serrano she was ‘equally responsible’ for murder if she knew the killer’s identity or ‘help[ed] out a killer after they killed somebody.’” Detective Bourgeois told Serrano, “You look equally as responsible. You may not have pulled the trigger, but somebody did and you know who did.” This is far from an unequivocal statement regarding Serrano’s murder liability. Detective Bourgeois later broached the subject of helping a killer after a killing, but Serrano interrupted him. She twice said, “I didn’t help nobody out.” Any exaggeration or deception by Detective Bourgeois was not “‘“‘of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement.’”’” (Williams, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 443.)
Serrano’s statement was not the result of protracted haranguing. Approximately 12 minutes elapsed between the beginning of the interview and when Serrano inculpated appellant. Serrano was not handcuffed or physically intimidated. Her resistance to the detectives’ overtures, “far from reflecting a will overborne by official coercion, suggests instead a still operative ability to calculate [her] self-interest in choosing whether to disclose or withhold information.” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 58.)
Just before Serrano said she no longer wanted a lawyer, Detective Bourgeois indicated she would be booked for murder and could let the jailer know if she wanted to speak. Thus, the direct impetus for Serrano’s change of heart was the simple reality that she was about to be booked and confined for murder. (Cf. People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 814 [coercive police
11
activity must be the proximate cause of the statement, not merely a cause in fact].) This was no police ruse—despite her statement inculpating appellant, Serrano was booked for murder. Even considering Serrano’s inexperience with criminal law, her September 12 statement was not involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. Admission of the statement did not deprive appellant of due process or a fair trial.
Finally, appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to object to admission of Serrano’s September 12 interrogation. This claim fails because, for the reasons articulated above, it is not reasonably probable appellant could have shown the statement was coerced had his counsel objected. (See People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 239.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.
12
Teresa P. Magno, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.