People v. Hernandez CA2/7

DISCUSSION

I. Admissions to Police

On appeal, Hernandez contends that the statements he made during questioning after his arrest should have been suppressed for two reasons: first, because Hernandez did not knowingly and intelligently waive his rights; and second, because his statement was not voluntary, having been induced by deceptive and coercive tactics. Hernandez

The trial court ordered that she be referred to as Brenda Doe to protect her privacy. (Pen. Code, § 293.5.) We follow this convention.

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

2 did not argue in the trial court that he had not made an intelligent and knowing waiver of his rights: instead, he argued that the statements should be ruled inadmissible because the Miranda warning was improperly translated into Spanish and because the statement was involuntary due to implied threats. “[U]nless a defendant asserts in the trial court a specific ground for suppression of his or her statements to police under Miranda, that ground is forfeited on appeal, even if the defendant asserted other arguments under the same…