 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Prasertphong9/2/2003
ion established a prima facie case for admission of Prasertphong's statement. And even after the detectives' credibility was called into question, the trial judge still found their testimony credible under the totality of the circumstances.
On appeal, Prasertphong relies on State v. Thomas, 148 Ariz. 225, 226, 714 P.2d 395, 396 (1986), a case in which a defendant confessed to child molestation after being told that a confession might help him avoid a prison sentence in favor of jail time and counseling. In that case, almost immediately after making the audio taped confession, the defendant recanted his statement. Id. at 226-27, 714 P.2d at 396-97. This court held that because of the promise of leniency, combined with the defendant's persistent assertions of innocence, the evidence was insufficient to prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 228, 714 P.2d at 398.
Thomas differs significantly from this case. In Thomas, the detective did not deny promising leniency. 148 Ariz. at 227, 714 P.2d at 397. Here, the detectives adamantly denied hitting Prasertphong, denied making any promises of leniency in exchange for a statement, and claimed that the death penalty is never a consideration in questioning defendants. Other than Prasertphong's testimony, there is no evidence of an express or implied promise and no evidence that the detectives either physically harmed Prasertphong or threatened to do so. And even if any of these events had occurred, Prasertphong testified at the suppression hearing that he did not rely on the alleged physical intimidation or suggestion that if he cooperated he would not receive the death penalty. Rather, he testified he chose to give the detectives a statement only after they promised he would be released in exchange for the statement. The trial court did not find this or any of Prasertphong's other allegations credible.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's determination, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Prasertphong's statement was not given in reliance on assurances by the detectives or as a result of impermissible police interrogation tactics. See State v. Hensley, 137 Ariz. 80, 87, 669 P.2d 58, 65 (1983) (finding defendant did not give statement in reliance on promise that statement would not be admissible in court because defendant made the statement the next day to different police officers after being read his Miranda rights). The trial court did not err in denying Prasertphong's motion to suppress his statements.
VI.
Prasertphong also contends his due process rights were violated and he was prejudiced because the juror questionnaire told the prospective jurors that he is not a United States citizen. The questionnaire presented the following question:
Kajornsak Prasertphong is from Thailand and is a Thai citizen, although he has been living in this country for eleven (11) years. Think about your views of oriental men. Is there anything about how you feel about oriental men that would make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure, 18.5(e) provides that " he examination of prospective jurors shall be limited to inquiries directed to bases for challenge for cause or to information to enable the parties to exercise intelligently their peremptory challenges." "The method and scope of voir dire is left to the discretion of the trial judge." State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 148, 37, 42 P.3d 564, 579 (2002) (citing State v. Detrich, 188 Ariz. 57, 64-65, 932 P.2d 1328, 1335-36 (1997) ( Detrich II )), opinion supplemented by 40
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|