Inextricably Intertwined Offenses
The determination whether the offenses are "inextricably intertwined" or "logically distinct" focuses on whether the charged and uncharged offenses occurred at the same place and time and involved the same parties. (See U.S. v. Hines, supra, 963 F.2d at p. 257, which held the crimes there at issue were "separate and distinct," and therefore not inextricably intertwined, because "the place, time and persons involved were all different"; see also People v. Wader, supra, 5 Cal. 4th at p. 654, fn. 7, which noted that the robberies at issue in that case "were distinct from the charged offenses; the places, times and victims were all different.")
Similarly, in In re Michael B. (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 790, 178 Cal. Rptr. 291, Division One of this court focused on the time, place, and parties involved in order to reject a claim that three separate residential burglaries committed in the same locale, close in time to each other, and involving the same modus operandi but different victims were "closely related" such that once the defendant was charged with one of the burglaries and counsel was appointed to represent him, the police could not question the defendant about the other two crimes without the defendant's attorney being present.
In rejecting the defendant's argument, the court relied, in part, on People v. Boyd (1978) 86 Cal. App. 3d 54, 150 Cal. Rptr. 34, which was then and is now the only California case that involves "facts showing a close relationship of the charged and uncharged offenses (nearly contemporaneous burglary and arson of the same premises.)" ( In re Michael B., supra, at p. 795.)
According to the Michael B. court, "In Boyd, where the facts of the burglary, the charged offense, and arson of the same premises at or about the same time, were so inextricably enmeshed that factually and conceptually it was virtually impossible to distinguish the events, questioning on one crime necessarily impinged upon the effective representation on the other." (125 Cal. App. 3d at p. 797.)
The defendant in Boyd had burglarized the victim's home several times over the course of many days. a fire broke out during what turned out to be the final burglary.
When questioned by the police, the defendant admitted taking items from the victim's home without the victim's consent.
As a result of that admission, the police arrested the defendant both for burglary and arson. the district attorney only charged the defendant with burglary.
Following his arraignment and appointment of counsel on the burglary charge, the police interviewed the defendant twice more regarding the fire.
During the second interview, the defendant made statements in which he implicated himself in the arson and, as a result, the district attorney charged the defendant with that crime.
At trial, the defendant moved to exclude the statements he made during the two post-arrest interviews on the ground that the police obtained those statements in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the burglary and arson were part of a continuing and related course of criminal conduct.
The trial court ruled that statements related to the burglary were inadmissible but the defendant's statements regarding the arson were admissible because that charge had not been filed at the time of the police interviewed the defendant and obtained the challenged statements. (People v. Boyd, supra, 86 Cal. App. 3d at p. 59.)
The appellate court reversed and held that where a defendant has been charged and counsel appointed in a "closely related offense," the Isby rule applies (People v. Boyd, supra, 86 Cal. App. 3d at p. 61) and "the accused acquires an absolute, unwaivable right to counsel's presence at any subsequent police interrogation." (Id., at p. 60.)
In holding that the burglary and arson were "closely related" the court cited the following facts: both crimes involved the same premises, the same victim, and were closely connected in time. (Id., at p. 62.)
Although the "closely related" concept is now disfavored, if not completely abrogated, the focus on the factual relationship between the offenses in terms of time, place, and participants nevertheless is pertinent in determining whether the crimes are "inextricably intertwined" such that the Massiah v. United States (1964) rule applies.