Jose Luis Izaguirre v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

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