Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
Not for Publication -Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County Cause No. S8015CR201101064 The Honorable Steven F. Conn, Judge
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section And Linley Wilson, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee
Barbara Cook-Hamp, Mohave County Legal Advocate Kingman By Jill L. Evans, Deputy Legal Advocate Attorneys for Appellant
ANDREW W. GOULD, Presiding Judge
¶1 Steven Michael Mulverhill ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to suppress statements he made during police interrogation. Appellant requests that we reverse the trial court and suppress his statements to the police; vacate his conviction; and remand his case for a new trial. Because we find no error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural Background
¶2 Appellant was indicted on the following offenses: Count 1, sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a Class 2 felony; Count 2, molestation of a child, a Class 2 felony; and Count 3, attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of fifteen, a Class 2 felony. Following a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty on all three counts.
¶3 Prior to trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress statements he made to the police. In his motion, Appellant asserted that police questioned him despite the fact he invoked his right to counsel.
¶4 Pursuant to Appellant's motion, the court held an evidentiary hearing. A DVD of Appellant's interview was admitted as evidence at the hearing. The DVD shows that Appellant was read his Miranda rights at the beginning of the interview, and that Appellant acknowledged he understood his rights and proceeded to answer a number of questions. Approximately twenty minutes into the interview, Detective Otero asked Appellant if he had been in a bathroom with the minor victim. When Appellant explained why he had entered the bathroom with the minor, Detective Otero informed Appellant that his words contradicted the accounts of both the minor victim and an eyewitness. The following exchange then ensued:
Appellant: I think our conversation is done; I want a lawyer present now.
Detective Otero: OK.
Appellant: Because I'm being accused of something I know nothing about and I'm getting upset.
Detective Otero: You do know something about it, Steven, and you can be upset all you want, and I'm not mad at you, ok? You can ask ...