The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that prosecutors in Boulder County may use a murder suspect’s statements to police as evidence because officers did not need to give the defendant a Miranda warning prior to asking about all of the blood on him.

Brandon Mason Bohler stands accused of first-degree murder for fatally stabbing his roommate, Richard Reeves, in March 2021. Bohler has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

Shortly after stabbing Reeves, Bohler encountered two police officers along Baseline Road. They repeatedly asked him about the substantial amount of blood on him, then handcuffed Bohler once they learned of the stabbing. Bohler moved to block prosecutors from using as evidence the statements he made to the officers, arguing they did not advise him of his Miranda rights before speaking with him.

A trial judge agreed the officers effectively interrogated Bohler in custody without a Miranda warning, requiring suppression of the evidence. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with that characterization of the encounter.

“Overall, the exchange was closer to ‘Please sit down. Why is there blood on you?’ rather than ‘Get down on the ground! Who did you hurt?'” wrote Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright in the April 8 opinion.

Prosecutors argued Bohler’s initial statements to Officers Collin Keith and Meghan Nettles crucially showed he was not, in fact, legally insane at the time he killed Reeves and that the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary in the ongoing case.

The night of Reeves’ slaying, Keith and Nettles were dispatched on a welfare check and approached Bohler in the road. Bohler held a Bible and a phone and put his hands up unprompted.

“Man, are you covered in blood?” Keith asked.

“I’m covered in Jesus’ blood,” Bohler responded.

The officers asked Bohler to sit down and he complied. They continued to question Bohler about the blood, but he instead referenced the “word of god” and Jesus’ blood. Bohler did, however, answer less incriminating questions about his name and birthdate.

Approximately five minutes into the encounter, the officers handcuffed Bohler after hearing about the stabbing and they transported him to the police department.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, law enforcement must advise suspects of their rights to consult with an attorney and to remain silent whenever they are interrogated in custody. Bohler contended he was effectively in custody when he spoke with Keith and Nettles. Therefore, the lack of a Miranda warning meant prosecutors could not use his statements, which were recorded on a body-worn camera.

Reviewing the circumstances of the roadside conversation, District Court Judge Patrick Butler agreed Bohler was in custody when the officers told him to sit down and questioned him about the blood.

“Although the tone of the interaction was conversational and no weapons were drawn, Defendant’s degree of movement was restrained to a seated position on the side of the road where a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have believed that his freedom of action had been curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest,” Butler wrote in May 2023. “Furthermore, Defendant was subject to numerous questions by Ofc. Keith that Ofc. Keith should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”

The prosecution appealed directly to the Supreme Court, maintaining the encounter was focused on Bohler’s welfare and did not resemble an arrest. Bohler, meanwhile, contended he was “outnumbered” in a “police-dominated atmosphere” that was ultimately focused on uncovering details about the blood.

The Supreme Court acknowledged some factors suggested Bohler was effectively in custody, including the officers’ directives and some of their questioning. But on the whole, Boatright wrote that the tone, duration and original purpose of the encounter — a welfare check — undermined the idea Bohler needed a Miranda warning.

“Officer Keith’s requests did not feature force, threats of negative consequences for not complying, or an aggressive tone. Understandably, the officers wanted Bohler out of harm’s way,” Boatright explained. “Thus, while Officer Keith’s request that Bohler sit down weighs in favor of custody, overall, the requests were related to immediate safety, which does not indicate custody.”

The case is People v. Bohler.