STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Andrei Petrovich Guchikov,
Filed July 28, 1998
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 97055988
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 14th Floor NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Gayle C. Hendley, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 S. Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Davies, Judge.
Alleging that the police should have provided a Russian language interpreter when they read him his Miranda rights, appellant Andrei Petrovich Guchikov challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his statements to the police. We affirm.
The state charged appellant with criminal sexual conduct in the third degree under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(b) (1996), and use of a minor in a sexual performance under Minn. Stat. § 617.246, subd. 2 (1996). At a Rasmussen hearing, appellant moved to suppress his statements to the police. Appellant contended that because the police did not provide him a Russian language interpreter when they administered the Miranda warning, he did not waive his Miranda rights knowingly and voluntarily. The district court denied appellant's motion. Subsequently at trial, the jury found appellant guilty on both counts. This appeal followed.
Minn. Stat. §§ 611.30-.34 (1996) require police officers to obtain an independent qualified interpreter before interrogating persons handicapped in communication. But violation of these interpreter statutes does not require suppression of statements. State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245, 253 (Minn. 1997). The issue is whether the defendant validly waived his constitutional rights, not whether the interpreter statutes were violated. Id. The state remains burdened to prove that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Id. at 252. Ordinarily, the state is deemed to have met its burden if it shows that the defendant was fully advised of his Miranda rights, indicated he understood those rights, and gave a statement. Id.
Here, at no point either before or during the interrogation did appellant say anything to indicate that he did not understand his rights or that he wished to invoke his right to remain silent. Although Russian may have been appellant's first language, his entire conversation with the officer indicated a comfortable facility with English. We agree with the district court that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarilywaived his right against self-incrimination. Therefore, he is not entitled to suppression of his statement.