Chapter 5 - §6. Appellate review

• Jurisdiction: United States

§6. Appellate review

§6.1. Factual findings. The trial court's findings regarding facts and inferences, and its evaluations of credibility, are reviewed under the deferential substantial-evidence standard if those facts or circumstances were disputed and resolved by the trial court. See People v. Sanchez (2019) 7 Cal.5th 14, 48; People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 551; People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1194, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911; People v. Sumagang (6th Dist.2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 712, 725. Any facts that were not in dispute or resolved by the trial court, however, are subject to an independent or de novo review. Duff, 58 Cal.4th at 551; People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 753; see People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 661. However, an objection to a confession based on a Miranda violation is legally distinct from a due-process-based objection; an objection on one ground does not preserve the other for appellate review. People v. Orozco (2d Dist.2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802, 819.

§6.2. Conclusions of law. A trial court's conclusions of law on a Miranda issue are subject to independent or de novo review. See People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 551; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 730. Whether a defendant was in custody under Miranda is a mixed question of law and fact requiring the application of the deferential substantial evidence standard to the trial court's factual findings. People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395; People v. Potter (3d Dist.2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 540; In re Matthew W. (1st Dist.2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 392, 406. The question of whether a Miranda waiver was voluntary is also a mixed question of fact and law that is reviewed de novo. U.S. v. Price (9th Cir.2019) 921 F.3d 777, 791; People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 299; People v. Sumagang (6th Dist.2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 712, 725.

§6.3. Effect of error. If the trial court erred by admitting a statement or other evidence obtained in violation of Miranda, California and federal courts apply the harmless-error standard. People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 32-33, overruled on other grounds, People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826; In re Matthew W. (1st Dist.2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 392, 410; People v. Roberts (6th Dist.2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 469, 480. Under this standard, a California court considering the issue on direct appeal must reverse the conviction unless it is convinced, based on the entire record, that the statement's...