Forfeiture and Coerced Confessions

• Forfeiture by Failing to Object
• Coerced Confessions and Due Process
• Threats to Charge a Relative as an Inducement to Confess

Failure object to the admissibility of evidence at the trial court level precludes, as a general rule, an appellate court from considering the issue.  An appellate court, however, has the discretion to consider an issue not previously objected to if the issue involves pure questions of law on undisputed facts.  A confession coerced by a threat to arrest a close relative is a violation of the Due Process Clause and not admissible in evidence.  An exception to this rule applies when probable cause to arrest the relative exists.

Defendant Enrique Mayorga Jimenez lived in a residential neighborhood in the City of Highland, California, on Elmwood Road, with his two sons (ages 14 and 17) and his elderly disabled mother.  Seven or eight doors down the street was the residence of Morris Barnes; a gang member known to defendant as “Maurice.”  Defendant had heard rumors that Maurice—who he considered to be a friend—and his gangster homies were planning to do a home invasion robbery at defendant’s residence, intending to steal marijuana that defendant grew in his house.  On May 19th of 2016, defendant, while outside, encountered Maurice walking down the street in front of his house.  Defendant—thinking about maybe killing Maurice but not yet being able to make up his mind—invited him into his garage for a beer.  As the two of them sat there drinking together, defendant eventually told Maurice: “I don't understand how can you tell my business to other people and put my mom and my family in harm’s way.”  Maurice’s repeated ....