People v. Cardman

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2016COA135

Court of Appeals No. 14CA0202
El Paso County District Court No. 12CR2114
Honorable Robert L. Lowrey, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Ryan Matthew Cardman,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

Division V
Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN
Bernard, J., specially concurs
Berger, J., dissents

Announced September 22, 2016

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Gabriel P. Olivares, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Katherine Brien, Deputy
State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981), the

United States Supreme Court held that after a suspect invokes his

right to counsel during custodial interrogation, the police may not

subject him to further interrogation unless he “himself initiates

further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the

police.”

¶2 This case presents the question of whether a suspect who has

so invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel may reinitiate

communication with the police through an agent, here, the

suspect’s wife, or whether reinitiation can occur only by direct

contact between the suspect and the police. No Colorado appellate

court has addressed this issue.

¶3 Following the lead of every federal and state appellate court

that has decided this question to date, we hold that reinitiation may

occur through an agent, but we also conclude that the police must

have a reasonable belief that the suspect has, in fact, requested the

agent to reinitiate contact between the suspect and the police.

¶4 Because the record here supports a finding that the police had

a reasonable belief that defendant, Ryan Matthew Cardman,

requested his wife to reinitiate contact with the police on his behalf

1
after he had invoked his right to counsel, we discern no

constitutional error in admitting his inculpatory statements.

Because we further conclude that defendant waived his claim of

voluntariness at the suppression hearing, and discern no error in

the trial court’s admission of certain statements, we affirm.

I. Background

¶5 Defendant was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of sexual

assault on a child and sentenced to concurrent indeterminate

sentences of twelve years to life in prison.

¶6 When the victim was seven, she and her mother moved in with

defendant, her mother’s then-boyfriend. The victim and her mother

lived with defendant for about a year, and then the victim’s mother

became involved with another man, whom she later married.

¶7 Several years later, the victim told her stepfather that

defendant had sexually assaulted her multiple times when she lived

with him. After the police were contacted, a forensic interview of

the victim was conducted. During her video-recorded forensic

interview, which was admitted at trial, the victim alleged numerous

instances of sexual contact between her and defendant. The victim

2
also testified at trial that defendant had sexually assaulted her on

multiple occasions.

¶8 The police executed a search warrant on defendant’s home.

They informed him the search was related to their suspicion of

inappropriate activity on the Internet. During the search, they

recovered a weapon.

¶9 Defendant was arrested on the charge of possession of a

weapon by a previous offender. He promptly exercised his rights to

remain silent and to counsel, and the police ceased questioning.

But two days later, a police detective conducted another interview of

defendant. An audio recording of defendant’s second police

interview was admitted at trial. In the interview, after initially

denying any improper sexual contact with the victim, defendant

admitted to three instances of sexual contact.

¶ 10 Before trial, defense counsel moved to suppress defendant’s

inculpatory statements on the basis that defendant had invoked his

right to counsel and had never reinitiated discussions with the

police. The trial court denied the motion after a suppression

hearing, finding that after the first interview but before the second

3
interview, defendant had communicated to the police through his

wife a general willingness to talk about the investigation.

¶ 11 On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by

(1) denying his motion to suppress on the grounds that he

reinitiated communication with the police; (2) failing to sua sponte

hold a hearing on the voluntariness of his confession; and

(3) admitting statements made by the detective.

II. Third-Party Reinitiation Under Miranda and Edwards

¶ 12 Defendant contends the district court erred by not

suppressing statements he made during his second custodial

interrogation because he had previously invoked his right to

counsel and did not himself reinitiate communication with the

police.1 The People respond that defendant reinitiated contact with

1 Defendant also contends that the police failed to scrupulously
honor his invocation of his right to remain silent. However, he does
not further develop this contention, nor does he cite any supporting
authority for it. We do not address conclusory assertions of error
presented without argument, analysis, or support. See, e.g., People
v. Hill, 228 P.3d 171, 176-77 (Colo. App. 2009). Our discussion
thus is limited to the rules that apply after a suspect has invoked
his right to counsel, and we do not discuss whether, or to what
extent, these rules, or different rules, apply after an invocation of
the right to remain silent.

4
the police by directing a third party to reinitiate the communication.

We agree with the People.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 13 Review of a trial court’s decision whether to suppress a

defendant’s statements presents a mixed question of law and fact.

People v. Kutlak, 2016 CO 1, ¶ 13. We defer to the court’s findings

of historical fact if they are supported by sufficient evidence in the

record, People v. Rivas, 13 P.3d 315, 320 (Colo. 2000), but we

review de novo the court’s ultimate legal conclusion — its

application of legal standards to the facts of the case, id.; see also

People v. Bonilla-Barraza, 209 P.3d 1090, 1094 (Colo. 2009). In this

respect, whether the facts found by the trial court show a

reinitiation by defendant of police discussions under Edwards is a

legal question that we review de novo. See, e.g., Holman v. Kemna,

212 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2000). In conducting this review, we

may look only at the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

People v. Gomez-Garcia, 224 P.3d 1019, 1022 (Colo. App. 2009).

B. Reinitiation of Contact with the Police

¶ 14 Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States

Constitution and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966),

5
once a defendant who is in custody requests counsel, all police-

initiated interrogation must cease until he has consulted an

attorney.

¶ 15 But “[a] suspect’s request for the assistance of counsel is not

irrevocable.” People v. Martinez, 789 P.2d 420, 422 (Colo. 1990). In

Edwards, the Supreme Court held that a suspect who has invoked

his right to counsel must not be “subject to further interrogation by

the authorities until counsel has been made available to him,

unless the accused himself initiates further communication,

exchanges, or conversations with the police.” 451 U.S. at 484-85;

see Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422.2

¶ 16 In Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983), the Court

attempted to explain when a suspect “initiates” contact with the

2 The Edwards rule embodies two distinct inquiries. “[T]he
‘initiation’ question” is only “the first step of a two-step analysis” for
determining whether a defendant’s post-invocation statements
made during custodial interrogation are admissible under Miranda
and Edwards. Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1048-49 (1983)
(Powell, J., concurring in the judgment). The second step is
determining whether the statements were preceded by a valid
waiver of the defendant’s previously asserted right to counsel. Id. at
1044-45; see also Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 95 (1984); People v.
Martinez, 789 P.2d 420, 422 (Colo. 1990). Defendant does not
dispute that he validly waived his Miranda rights at the start of his
second police interview, and thus we do not address this step of the
analysis.

6
police within the meaning of Edwards. A plurality of four justices

held that a defendant reinitiates communication with the police

where his comments “evince[] a willingness and a desire for a

generalized discussion about the investigation” and are not “merely

a necessary inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial

relationship.” Id. at 1045-46; see Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422; People

v. Pierson, 670 P.2d 770, 775 (Colo. 1983).

¶ 17 According to the plurality, some inquiries,

such as a request for a drink of water or a
request to use a telephone . . . are so routine
that they cannot be fairly said to represent a
desire on the part of an accused to open up a
more generalized discussion relating directly or
indirectly to the investigation. Such inquiries
or statements, by either an accused or a police
officer, relating to routine incidents of the
custodial relationship, will not generally
“initiate” a conversation in the sense in which
that word was used in Edwards.

Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045.

¶ 18 However, the Bradshaw plurality held the suspect had

reinitiated further conversation by asking an officer, “Well, what is

going to happen to me now?” because that question, “[a]lthough

ambiguous, . . . evinced a willingness and a desire for a generalized

discussion about the investigation; it was not merely a necessary

7
inquiry arising out of the incidents of the custodial relationship. It

could reasonably have been interpreted by the officer as relating

generally to the investigation.” Id. at 1045-46.

¶ 19 The dissenting justices agreed that “to constitute ‘initiation’

under Edwards, an accused’s inquiry must demonstrate a desire to

discuss the subject matter of the criminal investigation.”

Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1055 (Marshall, J., dissenting). The dissent,

however, disagreed with the plurality’s application because, in its

opinion, the suspect’s “question [could not] be considered ‘initiation’

of a conversation about the subject matter of the criminal

investigation,” but rather expressed merely a desire “to find out

where the police were going to take him.” Id. at 1055-56.

¶ 20 The Colorado Supreme Court has applied the Bradshaw

plurality’s test to determine whether a suspect has reinitiated

communication with the police, holding that “an accused must first

initiate the conversation with the police and by his comments must

‘evince[] a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion

about the investigation,’ and not merely question the reasons for

custody.” Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (alteration in original) (quoting

Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045-46).

8
¶ 21 The determination of whether a defendant’s communication

constitutes reinitiation with the police must be “based on the

totality of the circumstances of the case, ‘including the background,

experience and conduct of the accused.’” People v. Redgebol, 184

P.3d 86, 99 (Colo. 2008) (quoting Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422).

C. Third-Party Reinitiation

¶ 22 Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Colorado

Supreme Court has addressed whether a suspect can reinitiate

contact with the police under Edwards through a third party.

Nonetheless, other courts have addressed the issue and “all support

the validity of third-party communications.” Van Hook v. Anderson,

488 F.3d 411, 419 (6th Cir. 2007); see Henness v. Bagley, 644 F.3d

308 (6th Cir. 2011); Owens v. Bowersox, 290 F.3d 960 (8th Cir.

2002); United States v. Michaud, 268 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001);

Holman, 212 F.3d 413; United States v. Gonzalez, 183 F.3d 1315

(11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Murphy, 133 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (D.

Kan. 2015); Ex parte Williams, 31 So. 3d 670 (Ala. 2007);

Killingsworth v. State, 82 So. 3d 716 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009), rev’d

on other grounds sub nom. Ex parte Killingsworth, 82 So. 3d 761

(Ala. 2010); State v. Yonkman, 297 P.3d 902 (Ariz. 2013); Dixon v.

9
State, 751 S.E.2d 69 (Ga. 2013); Harvell v. State, 562 S.E.2d 180

(Ga. 2002); In re Tracy B., 704 S.E.2d 71 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).3

¶ 23 The leading case on this issue, and the one relied on by the

trial court in its suppression order, is Van Hook, 488 F.3d 411, a

split en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit. See, e.g., United States

v. Santistevan, 701 F.3d 1289, 1296 (10th Cir. 2012) (Tymkovich,

J., dissenting) (stating that Van Hook contains “[t]he most elaborate

discussion” of third-party reinitiation).

¶ 24 In Van Hook, 488 F.3d at 418, eight of the fifteen judges

constituting the en banc court held that under Edwards and

Bradshaw, whether the suspect’s communication to the police “is

direct or indirect is immaterial — what is important is [that] the

3 Although some of these cases address the reinitiation of police
discussions in the context of police interrogation after a defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to counsel has attached, the “Edwards
reasoning (including the exception for defendant-initiated conduct)
also applies to Sixth Amendment cases.” People v. Ross, 821 P.2d
816, 820 (Colo. 1992); see also Owens v. Bowersox, 290 F.3d 960,
962 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 629
(1986)). Sixth Amendment cases addressing whether a defendant
may reinitiate discussions with the police through a third party may
therefore provide guidance in the context of the Fifth Amendment
right to counsel. See, e.g., In re Tracy B., 704 S.E.2d 71, 76 (S.C.
Ct. App. 2010) (a Sixth Amendment right to counsel case was
relevant in deciding whether third-party reinitiation is permitted
under the Fifth Amendment).

10
impetus for discussion comes from the suspect himself.” There, the

court ruled that the defendant had reinitiated contact with the

police via his mother because (1) the detective spoke to the

defendant’s mother, who told the detective she had spoken with her

son; (2) “based on that discussion, [the detective] thought that [the

defendant] might want to talk to him”; (3) the detective contacted

the defendant and told him he had talked with the defendant’s

mother; and (4) the defendant confirmed to the detective that he

had talked with his mother and wanted to make a statement. Id. at

426.

¶ 25 The Van Hook majority explained that “permitting a suspect to

communicate a willingness and a desire to talk through a third

party is consistent with the interest protected by Edwards,” which

is preventing the police from “badgering defendants into waiving

their asserted right to counsel through repeated questioning.” Id. at

420 (citation omitted). Prohibiting a suspect from initiating

discussions with the police through a third party would create “an

artificial rule” not required by the Fifth Amendment, which is “not

concerned with moral and psychological pressures to confess

emanating from sources other than official coercion,” such as

11
pressure from “friends or family members who convince [suspects]

to talk with the police.” Id. at 420-21 (citation omitted).

¶ 26 Noting the “importance of admissions of guilt in our criminal-

justice system,” the majority emphasized that “[c]ourts must not

create ‘wholly irrational obstacles to legitimate police investigative

activity.’” Id. at 421 (quoting Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452,

460 (1994)).

¶ 27 Like Van Hook, decisions from other jurisdictions have held

that allowing reinitiation through a third party does not violate

Edwards because “the police are still prohibited from reinitiating

questioning, and the impetus for reinitiation must still come from

[the suspect].” Williams, 31 So. 3d at 683; see also Michaud, 268

F.3d at 737 (“Edwards and its progeny establish a clear line

preventing police initiation. By the same token, however, these

cases recognize that the [suspect] may change [his] mind and

initiate communication. It is a factual question whether that is

what occurred.”).

¶ 28 The seven dissenting judges in Van Hook would have held that

only the suspect’s (or his attorney’s) direct communication with the

police may reinitiate discussions after he has invoked his right to

12
counsel. 488 F.3d at 428 (Cole, J., dissenting). The dissent argued

that “[i]n addition to eviscerating Edwards, the majority’s holding

deviates from the clear import of the . . . Court’s jurisprudence on

custodial interrogations” by “endors[ing] the counter-intuitive

proposition that we may treat a suspect as willing to talk to the

police despite his silence to the police.” Id. at 429-30.

¶ 29 The dissent also noted that because a suspect cannot invoke

his right to counsel through a third party and “a proper

initiation . . . is indispensable to finding a valid waiver” of the right

to counsel, the majority’s holding created a “paradox”: “[a] third

party who could not invoke the [suspect’s] right to counsel may

nonetheless play a crucial role in bringing about the waiver of that

right.” Id. at 435.

¶ 30 The Van Hook dissent further emphasized that the majority’s

holding eroded the “‘bright-line’ quality of the Edwards rule” that

the Court has cited as one of its chief benefits: “[t]he merits of the

Edwards decision . . . lies in the clarity of its command and the

certainty of its application.” Id. at 430-32 (alteration in original)

(quoting Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 151 (1990)).

According to the dissent, because of the potential uncertainty and

13
complexity in determining whether a third party’s communication to

the police constitutes a reinitiation by the suspect, the “hallmark

‘clarity’ and ‘certainty of [] application’ of the Edwards rule [would]

be lost” under the majority’s rule. Id. at 432, 434-35 (alteration in

original) (quoting Minnick, 498 U.S. at 151).

¶ 31 We believe the majority’s analysis in Van Hook (and the other

federal and state cases) holding that, at least under some

circumstances, reinitiation may occur through a third party is

compelling, and we apply that rule here.

¶ 32 In so doing, we reject defendant’s argument that the Court’s

language that reinitiation occurs only if “the [suspect] himself

initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with

the police,” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485 (emphasis added), means

literally that only the suspect may communicate to the police that

he wants to talk.

¶ 33 The Court in Edwards attempted to ensure that any statement

made by a suspect during custodial interrogation was “not the

result of coercive pressures” by “prevent[ing] police from badgering

[the suspect] into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights.”

Minnick, 498 U.S. at 150-51 (citation omitted); see also Van Hook,

14
488 F.3d at 420. Edwards is based on the presumption that after a

suspect’s invocation of the right to counsel, “any subsequent waiver

that has come at the authorities’ behest, and not at the suspect’s

own instigation, is itself the product of the ‘inherently compelling

pressures’ [of custody and interrogation] and not the purely

voluntary choice of the suspect.” Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98,

104-05 (2010) (citation omitted).

¶ 34 But if a suspect reinitiates discussions with the police by

asking a third party to inform the police that he wants to talk, there

is no reason to assume that his subsequent waiver of the right to

counsel was the result of coercive pressures or the badgering of the

police. Under these circumstances, the suspect “evince[s] a

willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the

investigation,” Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (citation omitted), and

subsequent police interrogation does not violate Edwards.

¶ 35 Nonetheless, not all third-party communications to the police

regarding whether the suspect will talk to them constitute

“reinitiation” under Edwards. The Van Hook majority, 488 F.3d at

424-25, held that reinitiation of police discussions through a third

party occurs “[w]hen the police receive information that a suspect

15
wants to talk; when there is a sufficient basis for believing its

validity; and when the police confirm with the suspect the validity of

that information.”

¶ 36 We believe we can maintain Edwards’ “‘clear and unequivocal’

guidelines to the law enforcement profession,” Minnick, 498 U.S. at

151 (citation omitted), by applying a reasonableness standard to the

Van Hook majority’s test for third-party reinitiation. Because “[t]he

reasonableness standard provides law enforcement with a well-

defined, common sense rule,” the Court frequently applies the

concept of a “reasonable police officer” in its Fifth Amendment

jurisprudence. People v. Arroya, 988 P.2d 1124, 1131 (Colo. 1999)

(citing Davis, 512 U.S. at 461).

¶ 37 For instance, the Court held in Davis that to invoke the right

to counsel during custodial interrogation, a suspect must

“articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly

that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would

understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.” 512

U.S. at 459 (emphasis added). The Court explained that “[t]o avoid

difficulties of proof and to provide guidance to officers conducting

interrogations, this is an objective inquiry.” Id. at 458-59.

16
¶ 38 Using this familiar “objective standard of a reasonable police

officer under the circumstances” concept, Arroya, 988 P.2d at 1131,

in conjunction with the Sixth Circuit’s concept of “a sufficient basis

for believing [the] validity” of the third party’s communication to the

police, Van Hook, 488 F.3d at 425, provides the protection

necessary to avoid any evisceration of Edwards.

¶ 39 We thus hold that to establish that a suspect has reinitiated

discussions with the police after previously invoking his right to

counsel, the prosecution must show that (1) the police reasonably

believed that the suspect directed a third party to inform them that

he wanted to have “a generalized discussion about the

investigation,” Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (citation omitted); and

(2) the police confirmed with the suspect that he had so indicated.

¶ 40 Both prongs of this test must be proven to establish

reinitiation. If the prosecution does not sufficiently establish the

first prong, the fact that the suspect may have agreed to talk to a

police officer after the officer “confirmed” the suspect’s willingness

to talk does not cure this failure. Once the police contact the

suspect, some of the protection of Edwards is already lost. Without

sufficient reinitiation by the suspect, we cannot assume that the

17
suspect’s ultimate agreement to talk to the police is voluntary and

not the result of the police “tak[ing] advantage of the mounting

coercive pressures of ‘prolonged police custody’ by repeatedly

attempting to question a suspect who previously requested counsel

until the suspect is ‘badgered into submission.’” Shatzer, 559 U.S.

at 105 (citations omitted).

¶ 41 Regarding the third party’s representations of the content of

the suspect’s communication with the third party, the prosecution

must establish that the suspect’s “comments . . . ‘evince[d] a

willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion [with the

police] about the investigation.’” Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (quoting

Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045-46).

D. Application

1. Additional Facts

¶ 42 The evidence at the suppression hearing consisted of

testimony by the detective who conducted both interviews with

defendant. The detective testified that after the victim’s forensic

interview, the police obtained a search warrant for defendant’s

house and informed defendant during the search that the warrant

was based on some suspicions that he had engaged in

18
inappropriate activity or conduct on the Internet. During the

execution of the warrant, the police found a handgun. Because

defendant had a prior felony conviction, the detective asked

defendant and his wife to come to the police station to discuss the

gun.

¶ 43 The detective testified that the nature of the interview with

defendant at the police station was, “[i]nitially, to discuss the

finding of the weapon and him being a previous offender.” He

advised defendant of his Miranda rights, and defendant said that he

understood them. He then asked defendant if he wished to talk to

him, and defendant replied that he did not. Defendant then

requested counsel and the interview ended, at which point

defendant was arrested and taken into custody on the weapon

offense.

¶ 44 Regarding the events that led up to the interview two days

later at the jail, the detective testified that a Department of Human

Services (DHS) caseworker had been in contact with defendant’s

wife regarding interviewing the couple’s children. The detective

testified that he had learned from the caseworker that “[defendant]

and [defendant’s wife] had questions.” According to the detective’s

19
testimony, he called defendant’s wife, and “[i]n conjunction with

that phone call, he learned that both [defendant] and [defendant’s

wife] had questions about the investigation.”

¶ 45 At the suppression hearing, the following colloquy between the

prosecutor and the detective occurred:

Q. [Prosecutor:] Okay. So I want to talk to
you, then, about the conversation that you had
with [defendant’s wife] where she’s indicating
that [defendant and his wife] had some
questions. What did she say to you to indicate
that there were some additional questions
about the investigation?

A. [Detective:] It was centered around the basis
for the police department and DHS still being
involved with them and the children and the
reasons behind forensic interviews and
justifications for that.

Q. And how did [defendant’s wife] indicate to
you that [defendant] wanted to speak to you as
well about these issues?

A. I don’t recall her exact words, but I had the
understanding that she had been in conver --
she had been in contact with [defendant]. And
[the DHS caseworker] advised me that they –
[both defendant and his wife] had questions
about the investigation and the reasons why
we were still involved specifically with the
children.

...

20
Q. So the information that you had received
was that [defendant’s wife] had been in contact
with [defendant] and that they had some
questions about -- both of them separately had
some questions about what was going on with
the investigation with regard to the children; is
that correct?

A. Correct.

¶ 46 On cross-examination, the detective confirmed he had received

the information from not only the caseworker but also defendant’s

wife: “Q[:] [At] [s]ome point you receive information, between June

6th and June 8th, from -- directly from [defendant’s wife] or

through a third party that [defendant] wanted to -- was willing to

speak to you about some questions he had? A[:] Both.”

¶ 47 The detective testified consistently on this point, stating

during redirect examination that he made defendant aware, during

the first interview, “that there was some interest in an Internet

investigation or something related to the Internet.” The following

then took place:

Q. And it was after that time and after he had
that awareness or you had made those
statements that you received information that
he wanted to speak with you?

A. Correct.

21
Q. And that information, again, came from
[defendant’s wife]?

A. Correct.

2. Analysis

¶ 48 In our view, the detective had a reasonable basis for believing

that defendant had directed his wife (and also the caseworker) to

inform the detective that defendant wanted to have a generalized

discussion about the investigation. He knew that defendant and

defendant’s wife were married, had previously been in contact with

both of them, and understood that they had been in contact with

one another after the first interview. The detective’s testimony was

clear that defendant’s wife informed him that defendant had

questions about the investigation. Further, the detective knew the

DHS caseworker had also been in contact with defendant after the

first interview, and she also informed him that both defendant and

his wife had questions about the investigation.

¶ 49 Turning to the second step — whether the police confirmed the

information with the suspect — the detective testified that after

learning that defendant had questions about the investigation, he

22
called defendant at the jail and confirmed that defendant indeed

desired to speak with him:

Q. And when you made a phone call to talk to
him, your testimony previously was you said
you received information that he wanted to
speak with you?

A. Correct.

Q. And he confirmed that that was, in fact, the
case?

A. Correct.

...

Q. But you initiated that contact because
[defendant’s wife] said, “He wants to talk to
you”?

A. Correct.

¶ 50 We conclude that defendant “adequately evinced a willingness

and a desire to” reinitiate communication with the police through a

third party because the detective received information that

defendant had questions about the investigation, there was a

reasonable basis for believing the validity of that information, and

the detective confirmed with defendant the validity of that

information. See Van Hook, 488 F.3d at 424-26.

23
¶ 51 Similar to the facts in Van Hook, here (1) the detective spoke to

defendant’s wife, who told the detective she had spoken with

defendant; (2) based on that discussion, the detective believed

defendant had questions about the investigation; and (3) the

detective then contacted the defendant and confirmed defendant

wanted to talk. Id. at 426.

¶ 52 Defendant contends the evidence shows he only had a

willingness to talk, but not that he directed his wife to inform the

detective that he wanted to talk to the police. He further contends

that the fact that he had “questions” does not establish that he had

a desire to speak with the police about them. But the record, and

specifically the detective’s testimony, belies this argument. On

redirect examination, the detective was asked: “But you initiated

that contact [with defendant] because [defendant’s wife] said, ‘He

wants to talk to you’?” The detective answered unequivocally:

“Correct.”

¶ 53 No evidence in the record contradicts this point. Defendant’s

wife presumably could have testified that defendant did not “direct”

her to inform the detective that defendant wanted to talk. The

caseworker could have testified this way as well. Even defendant

24
himself could have testified at the suppression hearing that he did

not direct his wife to inform the detective that he wanted to speak

with him about the investigation without implicating his Fifth

Amendment privilege at trial. See Simmons v. United States, 390

U.S. 377, 394 (1968) (testimony by a defendant at a suppression

hearing is not admissible against him at trial on the question of

guilt). Thus, in our view, the evidence supports the district court’s

finding that defendant directed his wife to inform the detective that

defendant wanted to talk with him.

¶ 54 Next, defendant contends that, even assuming his wife’s

statements established that he had a willingness and a desire to

speak with the detective, the People failed to establish that such

statements evinced, on the part of defendant, a “willingness and a

desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation.”

Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

Specifically, he argues that the evidence presented at the

suppression hearing did not establish that he knew about the

sexual assault investigation before the second interview, and

therefore he could not have formed a willingness and a desire for a

generalized discussion about it.

25
¶ 55 We believe this view takes the holding in Bradshaw too far. In

our view, defendant’s comments “‘evince[d] a willingness and a

desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation,’ and

[were] not merely question[s] [regarding] the reasons for custody.”

Martinez, 789 P.2d at 422 (quoting Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045-

46). The detective made defendant aware, during the initial search

of the house and during the first interview, “that there was some

interest in an Internet investigation or something related to the

Internet.” And defendant’s questions “could reasonably have been

interpreted by the [detective] as relating generally to the

investigation.” Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045-46.

¶ 56 It is not necessary that defendant knew the specific subject

matter of the investigation. It is enough that he was aware of an

investigation, and that his subsequent decision to talk to police was

unqualified. See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987).

This Court’s holding in Miranda specifically
required that the police inform a criminal
suspect that he has the right to remain silent
and that anything he says may be used against
him. There is no qualification of this broad
and explicit warning. The warning, as
formulated in Miranda, conveys to a suspect
the nature of his constitutional privilege and
the consequences of abandoning it.

26
Accordingly, we hold that a suspect’s
awareness of all the possible subjects of
questioning in advance of interrogation is not
relevant to determining whether the suspect
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived
his Fifth Amendment privilege.

Id.

¶ 57 After the Spring decision, the Court held in Arizona v.

Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (1988), that a suspect’s invocation of the

right to counsel prevented police officers from trying to speak with

the suspect about a different investigation. The Court explained the

relationship of its new holding in Roberson with its holding in

Spring as follows:

Spring’s decision to talk was properly
considered to be . . . unqualified. Conversely,
Roberson’s unwillingness to answer any
questions without the advice of counsel,
without limiting his request for counsel,
indicated that he did not feel sufficiently
comfortable with the pressures of custodial
interrogation to answer questions without an
attorney. This discomfort is precisely the state
of mind that Edwards presumes to persist
unless the suspect himself initiates further
conversation about the investigation; unless he
otherwise states, there is no reason to assume
that a suspect’s state of mind is in any way
investigation-specific.

Roberson, 486 U.S. at 684 (citations omitted).

27
¶ 58 Here, defendant knew the police wanted to talk to him about,

at a minimum, the possession of a weapon by a previous offender

charge and something “related to the Internet.” With that

knowledge, defendant informed the detective, via his wife, that he

had questions about the investigation — specifically the reasons

and justifications regarding the children being interviewed by DHS.

¶ 59 These inquiries were not merely related to the routine

incidents of custody. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. at 1045-46. Rather, the

questions concerned not only what DHS was doing but also why

the children were being interviewed, and thus about the

investigation itself.

III. Voluntariness

¶ 60 A finding that defendant reinitiated communication with the

police under Miranda does not necessarily end the inquiry. “Under

the due process clauses of the United States and Colorado

Constitutions, a defendant’s statements must be made voluntarily

in order to be admissible into evidence.” Effland v. People, 240 P.3d

868, 877 (Colo. 2010); see Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398

(1978).

28
¶ 61 A trial court’s findings of fact on the voluntariness of a

statement will be upheld where they are supported by adequate

evidence in the record. Effland, 240 P.3d at 878. However, the

ultimate determination of whether a statement is voluntary is a

legal question we review de novo. Id.

¶ 62 To be voluntary, a statement must be “the product of an

essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker.” People v.

Raffaelli, 647 P.2d 230, 234 (Colo. 1982) (quoting Culombe v.

Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602 (1961)).

¶ 63 “A confession or inculpatory statement is involuntary if

coercive governmental conduct played a significant role in inducing

the statement.” People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 843 (Colo. 1991).

Coercive governmental conduct may include physical abuse,

threats, or psychological coercion. Id. at 843-44.

¶ 64 Whether a statement is voluntary must be evaluated on the

basis of the totality of the circumstances under which it is given.

Effland, 240 P.3d at 877. Relevant circumstances include: (1)

“whether the defendant was in custody or was free to leave”; (2)

“whether Miranda warnings were given prior to any interrogation

and whether the defendant understood and waived his Miranda

29
rights”; and (3) “whether any overt or implied threat or promise was

directed to the defendant.” Gennings, 808 P.2d at 844. These

considerations are not exclusive. Id.

¶ 65 “Threats and promises used by the interrogator factor into the

analysis of voluntariness but are not conclusive. For such threats

and promises to render a confession involuntary, they must have

caused the defendant to confess, for example, where police have

promised leniency in exchange for a confession . . . .” People v.

Wickham, 53 P.3d 691, 695 (Colo. App. 2001).

¶ 66 The critical voluntariness inquiry is whether the individual’s

will has been overborne by the coercive behavior of law enforcement

officials. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544 (1961); People v.

Humphrey, 132 P.3d 352, 361 (Colo. 2006).

¶ 67 “Voluntariness is an objective inquiry reviewing the record for

outwardly coercive police action, not a subjective analysis

attempting to arbitrarily surmise whether the defendant perceived

some form of coercive influence.” People v. Ferguson, 227 P.3d 510,

513-14 (Colo. 2010).

¶ 68 “[W]hen a confession challenged as involuntary is sought to be

used against a criminal defendant at his trial, he is entitled to a

30
reliable and clear-cut determination that the confession was in fact

voluntarily rendered.” Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972).

¶ 69 “[T]he Constitution does not require a voluntariness hearing

absent some contemporaneous challenge to the use of the

confession.” Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 86 (1977); People v.

Sanchez, 180 Colo. 119, 122, 503 P.2d 619, 621 (1972) (“We are not

prepared to say that the mere act of offering the statement into

evidence is sufficient to raise an issue of its voluntariness. The

defendant must make his objection known to the court by objection,

motion, cross-examination, or some other means during the course

of the trial which indicates to the judge that there is an issue of

admissibility of the statement.” (quoting Neighbors v. People, 171

Colo. 349, 357, 467 P.2d 804, 808 (1970))).

¶ 70 Here, an audio recording of the second interview was played

during trial. During that interrogation, the detective told defendant

that if he admitted to some, but less than all, of the allegations, he

could go home:

[Detective:] [After a suspect invokes his right to
counsel,] [o]ur department policy asks that we
wait twenty-four hours before we re-contact
the suspect and give him one last shot to say
— hey, this is the information we’ve uncovered,

31
can you explain some things? There is some
gray area, and I just want to make sure that
the stuff that happened is as much as she’s
talking about. . . .

[Detective:] Because we can — if we can
provide an explanation to help this go away for
you —

[Defendant:] I would love that.

[Detective:] So let’s fix that. Let’s fix that.
Because right now, it’s not going away. . . .

[Detective:] [I]f maybe you could meet [the
victim] halfway on some of those things, that
we can put the icing on the cake, put this in a
drawer, have her go heal, have you turned
around, get back with your wife, go to church,
live your life, and put all of this behind you,
right now today.

[Defendant:] I would love that, you have no
idea.

[Detective:] Then let’s do it. . . .

[Detective:] We both know where you wanna go
in life and with your wife and church and
everything. I’m not here to hang you, I’m not
here to beat you up today. I’m here to do this
[sounds of paper shuffling]. At the end of this
sentence, I put this in a drawer. And I can’t do
that if you tell me that you had sex with this
girl fifty, sixty times, I’m concerned. And then
I have a different investigation. If there was
some inappropriate sexual stuff that happened
once or twice, I want an explanation for that so
I can do this [sounds of paper shuffling], so I
can go home on my Friday, do you

32
understand? I’m trying to paint the picture,
man.

[Defendant:] If I can get this all figured out,
closed out, just done with, I can go home
tomorrow.

[Detective:] Let’s do it.

[Defendant:] That’s what I want to do.

[Detective:] And if I can help with any of that
here, I’d — you’re damn skippy. . . .

[Detective:] Because I honestly think that if
you can provide some sort of corroboration
and some answers, maybe [inaudible] an
apology or quick sorry for whatever it is, and I
give that to [the victim], I think that would go
away. . . .

[Detective:] What we don’t want to hear is that
Ryan Cardman wakes up over here every day
and lusts for sexual contact with a kid. And
there’s fifty, sixty times like what’s she’s
saying. We don’t want to hear that. But what
is explainable and what people understand
is . . . there was an accident, a momentary,
one-time lapse and a bad decision occurred.
People understand that, okay? What people
don’t understand is this guy over here who
wakes up every day to wait ‘til she’s alone, ‘til
you’re alone, to do those things. That guy is
the one we’re worried about. That’s the guy
that we try to send to prison and to lock up

33
and that’s what I want to eliminate here today.
And, Ryan, I don’t think you’re that guy.4

¶ 71 Defendant contends that statements he made in the second

interview were not voluntary and argues the trial court erred by not

sua sponte holding a hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of

the statements. We are troubled by the police interrogation tactics

used in this case; however, we do not reach the merits of the

voluntariness issue because defendant waived it by not raising it

during the suppression hearing.

¶ 72 Defendant acknowledges that he did not raise this issue at the

suppression hearing but urges us to review the issue anyway under

a plain error standard of review. We acknowledge that the supreme

court as well as divisions of this court have reached different

conclusions regarding whether a failure to contemporaneously

object on constitutional grounds results in the issue being reviewed

for plain error. Compare, e.g., People v. McMurtry, 122 P.3d 237,

241 (Colo. 2005) (a defendant may not raise claim of denial of

constitutional right to speedy trial for the first time on appeal),

4 There is no transcript of the interview in the record, and the audio
recording is very difficult to understand. The excerpts quoted are
our best approximation of what was said based on the audio
recording.

34
People v. Cooper, 205 P.3d 475, 478 (Colo. App. 2008) (declining to

consider unpreserved double jeopardy claims), and People v.

Kitsmiller, 74 P.3d 376, 378 (Colo. App. 2002) (declining to review

unpreserved due process claim that the defendant was entitled to

an evidentiary hearing), with, e.g., People v. Miller, 113 P.3d 743,

749-50 (Colo. 2005) (reviewing for plain error the defendant’s due

process claim regarding instructional error), People v. Kruse, 839

P.2d 1, 3 (Colo. 1992) (applying plain error standard to Fifth

Amendment argument and stating it is an exception to rule that

claim must first be brought in trial court), and People v. Tillery, 231

P.3d 36, 47 (Colo. App. 2009) (applying plain error review to

unpreserved claim of double jeopardy sentencing errors), aff’d sub

nom. People v. Simon, 266 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2011).

¶ 73 Because we conclude defendant waived his right to a hearing

on voluntariness, we need not wade into this dispute.

¶ 74 “Waiver is defined as the ‘intentional relinquishment or

abandonment of a known right.’” Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169

P.3d 662, 668 (Colo. 2007) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

35
725, 733 (1993)). And, unlike a right that is merely forfeited, “there

is no appeal from a waived right.” Id.5

¶ 75 Although defendant moved to suppress the incriminating

statements, he chose to do so solely on the basis that he did not

reinitiate communication with the police, not because his

statements were involuntary. The court held a two-day suppression

hearing. Defendant failed to raise voluntariness at any time during

the suppression hearing.6

¶ 76 On appeal, defendant does not argue that he was unaware of

the requirements that a statement must be voluntary to be

5 “Invited error is akin to waived error. Invited error obviously
should not be reviewable for plain error.” People v. Greer, 262 P.3d
920, 937 n.7 (Colo. App. 2011) (J. Jones, J., specially concurring)
(citations omitted).
6 This is not equivalent to a failure to contemporaneously object to

something during the heat of a trial. Defendant moved to suppress
the incriminating statements, but only on the basis that he had not
reinitiated contact with the police. Defendant cannot now
collaterally attack the voluntariness of those statements by seeking
remand for a voluntariness hearing. Remanding the case for the
trial court to hold a hearing on whether the statements were
voluntary would create an incentive for defendants to forgo raising
the issue of voluntariness and then to seek remand on appeal if
found guilty at trial. To hold otherwise would allow defendants to
roll the dice at the first trial (particularly where, as here, the
defendant is a felon who would likely not testify at trial and thus
where the only chance for the jury to see his denial of the charges is
in the videotaped interrogation) and only after being found guilty
seek suppression on different grounds than those raised initially.

36
admissible or that he request a voluntariness hearing. Rather, he

contends he raised the issue of voluntariness during opening and

closing statements at trial.

¶ 77 We disagree with defendant that the remarks made during

opening and closing statements were sufficient to raise the issue

and warrant a hearing under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368

(1964).7 This is because “[w]e must limit our review to the evidence

presented at the suppression hearing.” Gomez-Garcia, 224 P.3d at

1022. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that a trial

court has a duty to sua sponte hold a hearing on the issue of

voluntariness where the arguably coercive police tactics become

apparent during trial as opposed to during the suppression hearing.

¶ 78 To require the trial court to hold a hearing on the

voluntariness of a defendant’s statements where the issue first

becomes apparent during the trial would be overly burdensome and

inefficient. In the context of this case, such an obligation could

7 In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 374 & n.4 (1964), defense
counsel raised the issue with the trial court by directly informing
the court that the defendant “was in no mental condition to make
the statement” at issue and received acknowledgment from the
court that it understood counsel to be “questioning the
circumstances under which [the defendant] was interrogated.”

37
have required the trial court, after the audio recording of the

confession had been played for the jury, to sua sponte (1) declare a

mistrial; (2) order a new suppression hearing on the issue of

voluntariness; (3) convene a new jury; and (4) begin a new trial

(where the confession may even have been allowed).8

¶ 79 Defendant relies on Jackson for the proposition that a trial

court has a duty to sua sponte hold a hearing on the issue of

voluntariness absent an express objection by a defendant where it

should be evident to the trial court that voluntariness is an issue.

¶ 80 However, the defendant in Jackson raised the issue with the

trial court; although he “did not specifically object to the admission

of the confession initially, the trial court indicated its awareness

that Jackson’s counsel was questioning the circumstances under

which Jackson was interrogated.” 378 U.S. at 374. The Court in

Jackson even quoted the colloquy between the trial court and

Jackson’s attorney, during which counsel objected to the use of the

8 Moreover, were the trial court to sua sponte declare a mistrial,
defendant would undoubtedly raise the issue of double jeopardy.
People v. Espinoza, 666 P.2d 555, 558 (Colo. 1983) (“A mistrial
declared without the consent and over the objection of the
defendant invokes double jeopardy protection to bar retrial unless
‘manifestly necessary’ to preserve the public interest in a fair trial
and a just verdict.”).

38
confession and explained to the court “[the defendant] was in no

mental condition to make the statement.” Id. at 374 n.4.

¶ 81 Here, no such colloquy occurred at trial (and certainly not at

the suppression hearing) between the court and defendant’s

counsel that would have indicated defendant’s objection on

voluntariness grounds or the trial court’s awareness that defendant

was questioning the voluntariness of his statements.

¶ 82 Moreover, in Wainwright the Supreme Court explicitly rejected

the very argument defendant makes here:

Respondent also urges that a defendant has a
right under Jackson v. Denno to a hearing as
to the voluntariness of a confession, even
though the defendant does not object to its
admission. But we do not read Jackson as
creating any such requirement. In that case
the defendant’s objection to the use of his
confession was brought to the attention of the
trial court, and nothing in the Court’s opinion
suggests that a hearing would have been
required even if it had not been. To the
contrary, the Court prefaced its entire
discussion of the merits of the case with a
statement of the constitutional rule that was to
prove dispositive that a defendant has a “right
at some stage in the proceedings to object to
the use of the confession and to have a fair
hearing and a reliable determination on the
issue of voluntariness . . . .” Language in
subsequent decisions of this Court has
reaffirmed the view that the Constitution does

39
not require a voluntariness hearing absent some
contemporaneous challenge to the use of the
confession.

433 U.S. at 86 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

¶ 83 Thus, a defendant must request a hearing on the issue of

voluntariness in order for the court to hold one. Id.; Lego, 404 U.S.

at 489; Sanchez, 180 Colo. at 122, 503 P.2d at 621. Defendant did

not request such a hearing.

¶ 84 Accordingly, we conclude that because defendant moved to

suppress the statements, but did so solely on reinitiation grounds,

he waived the voluntariness claims. We therefore discern no error.

See People v. Staton, 924 P.2d 127, 133 (Colo. 1996) (To preserve a

suppression issue for appeal, where other grounds for suppression

are stated in the motion to suppress, defendant “must have stated

[the issue] initially as a ground for his motion to suppress.”); People

v. Salyer, 80 P.3d 831, 835 (Colo. App. 2003) (argument on appeal

that the district court erred in denying motion to suppress on

voluntariness grounds was waived where the defendant did not

raise that argument in the district court but raised other

suppression arguments); People v. Greer, 262 P.3d 920, 937 (Colo.

App. 2011) (J. Jones, J., specially concurring) (“If a defendant in a

40
criminal case waives an error in the trial court — i.e., intentionally

relinquishes or abandons a known right — he waives any right to

plain error review on appeal.”).

IV. Detective’s Statements on Credibility

¶ 85 Defendant next argues that reversal is required because the

recording of the interview admitted at trial included the detective’s

assertions that he believed the victim and did not believe

defendant’s denials of the victim’s allegations, and because the

detective testified that he did not believe defendant.

¶ 86 Defendant did not object to the admission of this evidence. We

therefore review the issue for plain error. People v. Lopez, 129 P.3d

1061, 1064 (Colo. App. 2005).

¶ 87 Plain error addresses error that is both “obvious and

substantial.” Miller, 113 P.3d at 750. Under the plain error

standard, “the defendant bears the burden to establish that an

error occurred, and that at the time the error arose, it was so clear

cut and so obvious that a trial judge should have been able to avoid

it without benefit of objection.” People v. Conyac, 2014 COA 8M,

¶ 54; People v. Ujaama, 2012 COA 36, ¶ 42. “The defendant must

also establish that the error was so grave that it undermined the

41
fundamental fairness of the trial itself . . . as to cast serious doubt

on the reliability of the conviction.” Conyac, ¶ 54.

¶ 88 In Davis v. People, 2013 CO 57, ¶¶ 1, 17, the Colorado

Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer may testify

about his perception of a witness’s credibility during an

investigative interview if the testimony is offered to provide context

for the officer’s interrogation tactics and investigative decisions

rather than as a comment on the witness’s credibility. It

necessarily follows that similar statements by police officers made

during the interrogation itself are admissible for the same purpose.

¶ 89 Here, the statements made by the detective during the

interview fall within the purview of Davis. The detective told

defendant numerous times during the interview that he did not

believe him after defendant had denied certain sexual contact with

the victim, and the detective also said that he believed at least some

of the victim’s allegations. And the detective testified at trial that he

used these statements as an interrogation technique.

¶ 90 Moreover, except for two statements by the detective during

his testimony that may have crossed the line into impermissible

42
commentary on defendant’s credibility,9 all of the detective’s

testimony was permissible under Davis. These two questionable

statements, if error, were neither so obvious that the trial judge

“should have been able to avoid [them] without benefit of objection,”

nor so grave as to undermine “the fundamental fairness of the trial

itself . . . as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the

conviction.” Conyac, ¶ 54.

¶ 91 Accordingly, we discern no plain error.

V. Conclusion

¶ 92 The judgment is affirmed.

JUDGE BERNARD specially concurs.

JUDGE BERGER dissents.

9 These statements were: (1) the detective’s testimony that he
“essentially told [defendant] that [he] didn’t believe him” when
defendant denied any sexual contact with the victim because of the
detective’s “own gut feeling in the way that [defendant] was
answering questions of known facts versus questions of [the
victim]’s allegations”; and (2) the detective’s testimony that after
defendant began to admit some sexual contact with the victim, the
detective “felt most of the information [defendant] was giving . . . to
[him] was genuine.”

43
JUDGE BERNARD, specially concurring.

¶ 93 I concur in full with the majority opinion. I write separately as

far as Part III is concerned to provide additional reasons for why I

respectfully disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that we should

review “the voluntariness question for plain error.”

¶ 94 It is my view that, for the following reasons, plain error review

in this case would be ineffective and unfair to the prosecution.

¶ 95 First, our supreme court has made clear that, to make

“meaningful appellate review” possible, a trial court must “make

sufficiently clear and detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law

on the record” before it “may rule that a confession is voluntary and

admissible, or that it is involuntary and must be suppressed[.]”

People v. McIntyre, 789 P.2d 1108, 1110 (Colo. 1990). “By failing to

present [his] claims” to the trial court, defendant “effectively

prevented the court from making factual findings that would be

germane to the disposition” of those claims. United States v.

Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199, 1216 n.9 (10th Cir. 2009). And we

obviously cannot make such factual findings on appeal. See People

v. A.W., 982 P.2d 842, 852 (Colo. 1999)(“Appellate courts are not

empowered to make factual findings[.]”).

44
¶ 96 Second, when a defendant does not file a motion to suppress,

the prosecution “may justifiably conclude that it need not introduce

the quality or quantity of evidence needed otherwise to prevail.”

United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 132 (5th Cir. 1997);

accord United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984, 990 (10th Cir. 2011);

United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175, 183 (3d Cir. 2008). So, if we

were to review defendant’s contention for plain error, the

prosecution would be “forced on appeal to rely on an

underdeveloped record in defending itself from the suppression

argument.” Rose, 538 F.3d at 182; accord Burke, 633 F.3d at 990;

Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d at 132.

45
JUDGE BERGER, dissenting.

¶ 97 I agree with the majority that a suspect may reinitiate contact

with the police through a third party after first invoking his Fifth

Amendment right to counsel. I also agree with the majority that the

police must have a reasonable belief that the third party has been

authorized by the suspect to reinitiate contact with the police.

¶ 98 But I respectfully dissent from the majority’s application of

these principles. Instead, I believe this record demonstrates that

the officer did not have a reasonable belief that Cardman wanted to

reinitiate contact with the police and engage in a generalized

discussion about the investigation. Therefore, the admission of

numerous inculpatory statements made by Cardman during the

ensuing unconstitutional interrogation violated Edwards v. Arizona,

451 U.S. 477 (1981), and thus the Fifth Amendment. And, on this

record, the improper admission of this evidence was not harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring reversal of Cardman’s

convictions.

¶ 99 I also dissent from the majority’s refusal to address, even

under a plain error standard, the voluntariness of Cardman’s

inculpatory statements that were admitted at trial. In my view, this

46
record demonstrates a substantial question regarding the

voluntariness of those statements and thus raises substantial

questions regarding the reliability of Cardman’s convictions.1

I. Reinitiation of Communications With the Police: This Record
Does Not Support a Finding and Conclusion that Cardman
Reinitiated Communications With the Police

¶ 100 For four reasons, I reject the trial court’s (and majority’s)

determination that Cardman reinitiated communications with the

police through his wife.

¶ 101 First, the People must prove that Cardman reinitiated

communications with the police by clear and convincing evidence.

See People v. Redgebol, 184 P.3d 86, 99 (Colo. 2008). They did not

meet this burden.

¶ 102 When the detective was given an opportunity at the

suppression hearing to explain the circumstances that led him to

contact Cardman after Cardman had invoked his rights to silence

and counsel, the detective testified as follows:

Q. Could you describe for the Court what are
the circumstances that led you to, once again,
speak with Mr. Cardman?

1I agree with Part IV of the majority’s opinion, “Detective’s
Statements on Credibility.”

47
A. As I said before, myself and assigned DHS
Caseworker Patricia Hartman had been in
contact with Mrs. Cardman in reference to
screening interviews of their children or if
there were to be forensic interviews completed
with the children. During those several phone
calls between DHS Caseworker Mrs. Hartman
and Mrs. Cardman, it was obvious there was
[sic] questions in reference to my part in my
investigation, to include some property we
obtained from the search warrant I had been
given back from our computer forensics unit,
and I was able to return that back to the
Cardmans. In conjunction with that phone
call, I learned that both Mr. and Mrs. Cardman
had questions about the investigation.

Q. Okay. And I just -- I kind of want to flush
that out a little bit, then. You referenced that
there was some evidence that had been seized
and that it sounds like the Cardmans or [Mrs.]
Cardman was interested in getting that
evidence back.

A. Correct. They both were.

Q. Okay. And that evidence was what?

A. It was a -- it was an Asus tablet, which is
similar to an iPad. It was a larger mini-laptop-
looking thing.

Q. And also while this was going on, there’s a
separate issue, which is that there’s the
possibility that the Colorado Springs Police
Department or others would like to complete a
forensic interview with the Cardmans’ two
children; correct?

A. Correct.

48
Q. And there were questions about that
interview process?

A. Correct.

Q. And this was an interview that was taking
place in conjunction with your investigation?

A. Correct.

Q. And you spoke with [Mrs. Cardman] about
these issues; is that correct?

A. DHS Caseworker Hartman spoke to her
about these issues. And I learned from
Caseworker Hartman that Mr. and Mrs.
Cardman had questions. I would -- I don’t
know what they were. I eventually talked to
Mrs. Cardman, and she explained they had
questions, I’m assuming, about that. And I
called her to tell her I could bring back the
Asus tablet and answer their questions that
they had.

Q. Okay. So I want to talk to you, then, about
the conversation that you had with [Mrs.]
Cardman where she’s indicating that they had
some questions. What did she say to you to
indicate that there were some additional
questions about the investigation?

A. It was centered around the basis for the
police department and DHS still being involved
with them and the children and the reasons
behind forensic interviews and justifications
for that.

Q. And how did she indicate to you that Ryan
Cardman wanted to speak to you as well about
these issues?

49
A. I don’t recall her exact words, but I had the
understanding that she had been in conver --
she had been in contact with Mr. Cardman.
And Mrs. Hartman advised me that they -- the
Cardmans had questions about the
investigation and the reasons why we were still
involved specifically with the children.

...

Q. So the information that you had received
was that [Mrs. Cardman] had been in contact
with Ryan and that they had some questions
about -- both of them separately had some
questions about what was going on with the
investigation with regard to the children; is
that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And did you receive any information that
there was any other reason that Mr. Cardman
wanted to talk to you, whether it be about
evidence or any other part of the investigation?

A. No. From what I recall, the phone call was
very brief. And I had informed Mrs. Cardman
that I had received the Asus tablet back from
the computer forensics unit; and I can bring
that back to her and then cover in more detail
what her concerns were. So we didn’t discuss
specifics over the phone call.

Q. And so once we’ve received the information
from – from [Mrs.] Cardman, which is Ryan’s
wife, did you then initiate some contact with
Mr. Cardman?

A. Yes. Having the information Mr. Cardman
may have questions about the current status -

50
- I was actually on an unrelated investigation
at that moment in the field. I placed a phone
call to CJC and was actually routed to Mr.
Cardman’s ward and asked him if I came down
there, if he was gonna talk to me, and he said
he would.

¶ 103 In my view, this testimony does not support a finding, by clear

and convincing evidence, that Cardman, through his wife, was

requesting the police to recontact him. Only later in the

suppression hearing, when the prosecutor asked a series of leading

questions — the premises of which were inconsistent with the

detective’s prior narrative testimony — did the detective utter the

testimony the majority relies on to find that Cardman reinitiated

contact with the police.

¶ 104 There is a reason that an elevated standard of proof applies to

this inquiry, and I would not countenance the avoidance of that

standard of proof by reliance on the types of inconsistent, leading

questions and answers given after the detective gave narrative

testimony that disproved reinitiation by Cardman.

¶ 105 Second, even if we were to assume that Cardman’s wife’s

statements to the detective established that Cardman had not only

a willingness but also a desire to speak with the detective, nothing

51
in the record shows that such statements evinced, on the part of

Cardman, a “willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion

about the investigation.” People v. Martinez, 789 P.2d 420, 422

(Colo. 1990) (emphasis added) (quoting Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462

U.S. 1039, 1045-46 (1983)). Although the trial court found that

Cardman’s communications with the police established that

Cardman was “willing” to talk to the detective, there is no evidence

(other than the detective’s agreement with the prosecutor’s leading

questions on redirect) that the detective reasonably believed that

Cardman directed his wife to inform the detective that he wanted to

talk to the police. Willing and wanting are not the same thing.

¶ 106 The fact that Cardman may have had “questions” does not

establish that he had any desire to speak to the police about those

questions. Anyone in Cardman’s position would have “questions”

about any number of things: what he was being charged with, the

future course of his life, the effect of his arrest on his family, and

numerous other subjects. But none of these “questions”

necessarily indicates that Cardman wanted to speak with the

detective about any or all of these matters, particularly after

previously clearly invoking his right to silence and to counsel. The

52
presumption raised by Cardman’s request for counsel, “that he

consider[ed] himself unable to deal with the pressures of custodial

interrogation without legal assistance,” Arizona v. Roberson, 486

U.S. 675, 683 (1988), did not disappear simply because the

detective learned that Cardman had “questions.”

¶ 107 Third, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing did

not establish that Cardman knew about the sexual assault

investigation before the second interview. Without any knowledge

regarding the subject of the investigation, Cardman could not

possibly have had a willingness and a desire for a generalized

discussion about it.

¶ 108 I disagree with the majority that “[i]t is not necessary that

[Cardman] knew of the specific subject matter of the investigation”

as long as he was “aware of an investigation.” As the United States

Supreme Court explained in Edwards, while a defendant, after

initially being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384

U.S. 436 (1966), may validly waive his rights and respond to

interrogation, “the Court has strongly indicated that additional

safeguards are necessary when [the defendant] asks for counsel.”

Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484. Consequently, although, as the majority

53
emphasizes, a defendant need not know “all the possible subjects of

questioning” to validly waive his Miranda rights initially, Colorado v.

Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987), the analysis changes once the

defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

¶ 109 “[C]ourts [must] indulge . . . every reasonable presumption

against [a] waiver” of constitutional rights, Brewer v. Williams, 430

U.S. 387, 404 (1977), and reinitiation by the suspect is a

prerequisite to a valid waiver of the suspect’s previously asserted

Fifth Amendment right to counsel, see Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-

85. Ironically, the majority relies on Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S.

675 (1988), which held that a defendant’s invocation of his Fifth

Amendment rights extends to all cases for which the defendant is

under investigation, to support its conclusion that waiving the right

to counsel also applies to multiple cases. Thus, the majority relies

on a case that extends Fifth Amendment protections to a suspect as

support for a waiver of those very rights.

¶ 110 Fourth, the fact that Cardman told the detective on the phone

that he would talk to him does not establish that the detective

confirmed with Cardman that Cardman intended, through his wife,

to reinitiate discussions with the police. Without such

54
confirmation, and without any other evidence in the record that

shows that Cardman intended to initiate contact with the detective,

we cannot be sure that Cardman’s subsequent waiver of the right to

counsel was “purely [his] voluntary choice” and not the result of

coercive pressures. Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 104-05

(2010) (quoting Roberson, 486 U.S. at 681). Under these

circumstances, concluding that Cardman reinitiated contact with

the police violates Miranda and Edwards.

¶ 111 The majority discusses only the detective’s responses to

leading questions by the prosecutor on direct examination

regarding the detective’s phone call with Cardman:

Q. And when you made a phone call to talk to
him, your testimony previously was you said
you received information that he wanted to
speak with you?

A. Correct.

Q. And he confirmed that that was, in fact, the
case?

A. Correct.

¶ 112 The majority, however, omits the exchange that immediately

followed this dialogue:

Q. And that he wanted to speak with you
about aspects of the investigation?

55
A. It was over the phone call. It was just
whether or not if I came down there, he would
— he would talk to me.

¶ 113 The majority also omits the following portion of the detective’s

testimony on direct about his phone call with Cardman:

A. . . . I placed a phone call to . . . Mr.
Cardman[] . . . and . . . asked him if I came
down there, if he was gonna talk to me, and he
said he would.

Q. And when you spoke with Mr. Cardman by
phone, did you make reference to the fact that
you had received information he wanted to
speak to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was his response to that?

A. He said he would talk to me.

¶ 114 I cannot agree with the majority that this testimony

establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that Cardman

confirmed that he had directed his wife to contact the police and

inform them that he wanted to speak with them. It may show that

he was “willing” to talk to the detective, but it does not show that

the “impetus” for the subsequent interrogation came from Cardman

himself. See Van Hook v. Anderson, 488 F.3d 411, 418 (6th Cir.

2007) (en banc).

56
¶ 115 To permit the police to re-interrogate a defendant after the

defendant has previously invoked his right to counsel, the

information the police obtain from a third party should be the

substantial equivalent of direct initiation by the defendant: it

should convey the same message as if the defendant himself had

contacted the police and said that he wanted to talk about his case.

Vague information that Cardman’s wife had spoken with him and

learned he had “questions” does not convey such a message.

¶ 116 For these reasons, the interrogation of Cardman and the

admission into evidence of Cardman’s statements to the police

(made after he had invoked his right to counsel) violated Cardman’s

rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

¶ 117 It is not a close question whether the improper admission of

Cardman’s statements requires reversal. Other than Cardman’s

statements, the only evidence presented at trial that he committed

the offenses was the victim’s testimony, the statements she made in

her forensic interview, and the testimony of other witnesses

regarding statements she had made to them.

57
¶ 118 Although the victim described a few instances of sexual

contact with Cardman that were similar to those Cardman

discussed in his statements, much of her testimony contained

numerous details that were not corroborated by Cardman’s

statements or by any other evidence. Indeed, much of her

testimony contradicted what she had said in her initial disclosures.

¶ 119 For instance, Cardman consistently denied any instances of

genital penetration. The victim initially said in her forensic

interview that Cardman had forced her into oral sex, but she

expressly denied any vaginal or anal intercourse. However, at trial

she testified that Cardman had penetrated her vagina and anus

with his penis multiple times.

¶ 120 The victim also testified that Cardman had physically abused

her by, among other things, hitting her in the face with a gun,

cutting the bottom of her feet and burning her with a heated-up

pocket knife, and making her submerge her hands in boiling water

for as long as she could stand it. She also testified that Cardman

carved the word “slut” into her leg with a knife, which caused her to

lose consciousness for at least twenty minutes and bleed so much

58
that her dogs were “covered in blood,” leaving a scar that lasted for

three years.

¶ 121 However, the victim did not disclose any of these events until

many months after her initial disclosures. Even more significantly,

her mother, who was a nurse, testified that she never saw any

unexplained injuries on the victim while they were living with

Cardman.

¶ 122 For these reasons, Cardman’s convictions should be reversed

and the case remanded for a new trial.

II. Voluntariness of Cardman’s Inculpatory Statements: This Record
Raises a Substantial Question Whether Cardman’s Inculpatory
Statements Were Voluntary and the Case Should Be Remanded to
Make the Voluntariness Determination

¶ 123 Having incorrectly concluded that Cardman reinitiated contact

with the police, the majority then declines on procedural grounds to

address whether Cardman’s statements made during the prohibited

reinitiated interrogation were voluntary.

¶ 124 I agree with the majority that Cardman did not directly raise

this issue in the trial court, but I disagree with the majority that

Cardman is procedurally barred from any review of the

voluntariness of his statements. Instead, I believe that we should

59
review the voluntariness question for plain error and that our

failure to do so raises serious questions regarding the reliability of

Cardman’s convictions.

¶ 125 Short of physical torture, I cannot imagine police tactics that

are more likely to lead to false confessions, and thus wrongful

convictions, than the conduct engaged in by the police in this case.

The facts are stark: a person is being questioned by the police

regarding extremely serious crimes, the penalty for which is an

effective life sentence and societal opprobrium that we judges can

hardly imagine. The police officer tells the suspect — no, promises

the suspect — that if he admits to what the officer characterizes as

relatively minor crimes (without telling the suspect that these

relatively minor crimes also could well result in an effective life

sentence) he can go home to his wife and child and no charges will

be filed. The majority acknowledges in the abstract that promises

of this type may constitute coercive conduct by the police and

support a conclusion that inculpatory statements made in reliance

upon such promises are involuntary. But nevertheless, for

procedural reasons, the majority refuses to address this police

conduct.

60
¶ 126 The statements of the detective during his interrogation of

Cardman illustrate far better than my characterizations the nature

and risks of the tactics used by the police to coerce Cardman’s

confession2:

[Detective:] [After a suspect invokes his right to
counsel,] [o]ur department policy asks that we
wait twenty-four hours before we re-contact
the suspect and give him one last shot to say
— hey, this is the information we’ve uncovered,
can you explain some things? There is some
gray area, and I just want to make sure that
the stuff that happened is as much as she’s
talking about. . . .

[Detective:] Because we can — if we can
provide an explanation to help this go away for
you —

[Cardman:] I would love that.

[Detective:] So let’s fix that. Let’s fix that.
Because right now, it’s not going away. . . .

[Detective:] [I]f maybe you could meet [the victim]
halfway on some of those things, that we can
put the icing on the cake, put this in a drawer,
have her go heal, have you turned around, get
back with your wife, go to church, live your life,
and put all of this behind you, right now today.

2 This is not a case in which the trial court did not hear evidence
regarding the coercive tactics used by the police. All of it was on
full display during the trial despite the fact that Cardman did not
expressly raise the voluntariness issue in his motion to suppress or
at the suppression hearing.

61
[Cadman:] I would love that, you have no idea.

[Detective:] Then let’s do it. . . .

[Detective:] We both know where you wanna go
in life and with your wife and church and
everything. I’m not here to hang you, I’m not
here to beat you up today. I’m here to do this
[sounds of paper shuffling]. At the end of this
sentence, I put this in a drawer. And I can’t do
that if you tell me that you had sex with this girl
fifty, sixty times, I’m concerned. And then I
have a different investigation. If there was
some inappropriate sexual stuff that happened
once or twice, I want an explanation for that so
I can do this [sounds of paper shuffling], so I
can go home on my Friday, do you understand?
I’m trying to paint the picture, man.

[Cardman:] If I can get this all figured out,
closed out, just done with, I can go home
tomorrow.

[Detective:] Let’s do it.

[Cardman:] That’s what I want to do.

[Detective:] And if I can help with any of that
here, I’d — you’re damn skippy. . . .

[Detective:] Because I honestly think that if
you can provide some sort of corroboration
and some answers, maybe [inaudible] an
apology or quick sorry for whatever it is, and I
give that to [the victim], I think that would go
away. . . .

[Detective:] What we don’t want to hear is that
Ryan Cardman wakes up over here every day
and lusts for sexual contact with a kid. And

62
there’s fifty, sixty times like what’s she’s
saying. We don’t want to hear that. But what
is explainable and what people understand
is . . . there was an accident, a momentary,
one-time lapse and a bad decision occurred.
People understand that, okay? What people
don’t understand is this guy over here who
wakes up every day to wait ‘til she’s alone, ‘til
you’re alone, to do those things. That guy is
the one we’re worried about. That’s the guy
that we try to send to prison and to lock up
and that’s what I want to eliminate here today.
And, Ryan, I don’t think you’re that guy.3

(Emphasis added.)

¶ 127 While I do not have sufficient information before me to

definitively make a determination of voluntariness, this record is

sufficiently disturbing to mandate a remand for findings by the trial

court on this critical question. In my view, the italicized portions of

the interrogation that I reproduced above violate any

constitutionally acceptable standard of police conduct and compel

the conclusion that the police engaged in coercive conduct.

¶ 128 It is not a satisfactory answer that we do not review the

voluntariness of Cardman’s confession because he waived the issue.

3 There is no transcript of the interview in the record and the audio
recording is very difficult to understand. The excerpts I quote are
my best approximation of what was said based on the audio
recording.

63
Waiver is uniformly defined as an “intentional relinquishment or

abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 733 (1993) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464

(1938)). There is no basis in this record to establish that Cardman

knowingly and intelligently waived a challenge to the voluntariness

of his inculpatory statements.

¶ 129 Criminal cases are not, or at least should not be, a contest to

determine whether defense counsel has made errors that cause

forfeiture of a defendant’s critical constitutional rights. The

pressure on defense counsel in criminal cases, particularly

overworked public defenders, is immense. That is precisely the

reason why the Colorado Supreme Court has adopted the doctrine

of plain error review: to correct obvious fundamental errors that

impair the reliability of a judgment of conviction.4

¶ 130 Put simply, the single most important legal question in this

case is whether Cardman was coerced into confessing guilt. If he

4 I do not quarrel with those cases that hold that strategic decisions
made by defense counsel should not be subject to plain error
review. See, e.g., People v. Bondsteel, 2015 COA 165, ¶ 129. But
the failure to object to the admission of Cardman’s confession on
voluntariness grounds could not conceivably be viewed as a
strategic decision.

64
was, and his inculpatory statements are suppressed under the Due

Process Clause, there is a significant chance that the outcome of

this case would have been different. Every other issue in this case

pales in comparison.

¶ 131 While I do not contend that a trial court has a sua sponte duty

to police every confession admitted into evidence, I also suggest it is

difficult to dispute that the audio recording of Cardman’s

interrogation by the detective would and should at least raise

serious questions in the mind of any judge regarding the tactics

utilized by the detective, even without an objection by counsel.

¶ 132 I also question the majority’s conclusion that Colorado law

does not require a trial court (or this court) to consider the

voluntariness of a confession even in the absence of a motion to

suppress. In Whitman v. People, 170 Colo. 189, 193, 460 P.2d 767,

769 (1969), the Colorado Supreme Court held that

[i]t is not necessary that there be an express
objection by the defendant to the admission of
the confession by a motion to suppress or by
contemporaneous objection. The trial judge is
required to conduct a hearing when it becomes
evident to him that voluntariness is in issue.
An awareness on the part of the trial judge
that the defendant is questioning the

65
circumstances under which the statements
were obtained is sufficient.

¶ 133 Whitman relied on similar language in Jackson v. Denno, 378

U.S. 368, 391-95 (1964). In Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 86

(1977), the United States Supreme Court repudiated that

interpretation of Jackson.

¶ 134 In a later Colorado Supreme Court case relied on by the

majority, People v. Sanchez, 180 Colo. 119, 122, 503 P.2d 619, 621

(1972), the court stated that “[w]e are not prepared to say that the

mere act of offering the statement into evidence is sufficient to raise

an issue of its voluntariness.” But Sanchez does not cite Whitman,

and neither Sanchez nor any other Colorado Supreme Court case

precludes plain error review in the circumstances presented by this

case.

¶ 135 Casting further doubt upon the current status of Colorado law

in this respect is People v. Copenhaver, where, twenty-three years

after Whitman, a division of this court stated:

Defendant did not contend in the trial court
that either statement was involuntary or
unreliable, nor did he request a hearing on
these issues. Moreover, the record does not
afford a basis for concluding that the
voluntariness of the statements might be

66
challenged. In these circumstances, the court
was not required to hold a hearing on
voluntariness sua sponte.

21 P.3d 413, 418 (Colo. App. 2000) (emphasis added).

¶ 136 As I have previously observed, questions regarding the

voluntariness of Cardman’s statements were obvious when the

audio recording of Cardman’s second interrogation was played for

the jury.

¶ 137 The majority recognizes that an appellate court reviews claims

of unpreserved error for plain error in a wide variety of contexts.

People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916, 929 (Colo. 2006). But in this critical

context, the majority applies special rules supposedly applicable to

suppression issues to preclude even plain error review.

¶ 138 The error in applying these special rules to preclude even plain

error review is further illustrated by the distinction between two

very different types of suppression issues commonly faced by

courts. The first is a claim that the evidence obtained by the

police — either physical evidence or inculpatory statements by a

defendant — should be suppressed because the Fourth Amendment

was violated in obtaining the evidence. People v. Jorlantin, 196 P.3d

258, 261 (Colo. 2008). Suppression of relevant evidence under the

67
Fourth Amendment has little to do with the reliability of the

evidence; in most cases the evidence is highly reliable and probative

of the defendant’s guilt. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S.

165, 174 (1969). Nevertheless, for reasons having nothing to do

with the reliability of the evidence, the United States Supreme

Court has held that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth

Amendment usually must be suppressed in order to provide an

enforcement mechanism for the Fourth Amendment. Davis v.

United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 (2011). Because reliability

forms no part of this equation, the application of procedural rules

requiring that such objections be made at a specific time, or else

they are waived for all time, is justifiable.

¶ 139 The other type of suppression issue — the type presented

here — is the admission of evidence that arguably violates the Due

Process Clause because the statements made by an accused were

not voluntarily made. Effland v. People, 240 P.3d 868, 877 (Colo.

2010). Unlike Fourth Amendment suppression, this type of

suppression directly implicates the reliability of the conviction

obtained. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 541 (1961).

68
¶ 140 It can no longer be denied that false confessions are a stain on

our judicial system. See, e.g., Richard A. Leo et al., Promoting

Accuracy in the Use of Confession Evidence: An Argument for Pretrial

Reliability Assessments to Prevent Wrongful Convictions, 85 Temp. L.

Rev. 759, 766 (2013) (“[T]he problem of contamination is epidemic,

not episodic, in cases of false confessions.” (quoting Laura H.

Nirider et al., Combating Contamination in Confession Cases, 79 U.

Chi. L. Rev. 837, 849 (2012))).

¶ 141 For this reason alone, we should be very circumspect before

allowing a procedural default to preclude all review of whether a

defendant’s inculpatory statements were made voluntarily or were

coerced when the issue is raised by the admission of evidence either

at a suppression hearing or at trial.

¶ 142 The daunting requirements for finding plain error eliminate

any concern by the majority that such plain error review will

overcome the rules of criminal procedure and lead criminal litigants

to hold back claims of error at trial and then, when they lose,

simply make the objections on appeal that they should have made

at trial. As our opinions demonstrate, findings of plain error are

few and far between, as they should be. Hagos v. People, 2012 CO

69
63, ¶ 23. But plain error review is essential to review convictions

that are potentially unreliable because of a serious error in the trial

court proceedings. Holding that plain error review is unavailable on

something as central to the integrity of the truth-finding process as

the voluntariness of a confession risks affirmation of convictions

based upon false, and thus unreliable, confessions.

¶ 143 In the vast majority of cases in which there is an unsupported

and unpreserved claim of involuntariness, there is virtually no

possibility that an appellate court will find plain error. But this

case is different. Here, the trial court knew precisely and the

appellate record demonstrates the factual basis for the claim of

involuntariness. Some of the details were spread before the trial

court in the colloquy with the detective at the suppression hearing.

The other sordid details were displayed when the prosecution

played the audio recording of Cardman’s second interrogation for

the jury. The only thing missing in this case is the ultimate

determination by the trial court, based upon all of the

circumstances, whether Cardman’s statements were involuntarily

made, a determination that trial courts not infrequently are

required to make on remand.

70
¶ 144 Reviewing the voluntariness issue for plain error, I would hold

that, as a matter of law, the police engaged in coercive conduct.

Therefore, I would remand to the trial court for a determination

whether, under all of the circumstances, Cardman’s confession was

involuntary and thus inadmissible for any purpose. People v.

Freeman, 668 P.2d 1371, 1378 (Colo. 1983). The majority’s failure

to do so leaves me with the firm belief that justice has not been

done in this case and that the convictions which the court affirms

may be unreliable.

III. Conclusion

¶ 145 For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. I would reverse

Cardman’s convictions because he did not reinitiate the police

contact. But even if he did, I would remand to the district court to

determine, under the appropriate legal standard, whether

Cardman’s statements were voluntary or involuntary. If they were

made involuntarily, they cannot be admitted for any purpose and

Cardman would be entitled to a new trial.

71