Case Title: STATE v ALLIES

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-240 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1980 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS . GUY JOHN ALLIES, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone. Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Klaus P. Richter argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Richter and Lerner, B i l l i n g s , Montana Alan J. Lerner argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: November 1 4 , 1980 Decided: .rEC 3 1 j a D -- Filed: -DEC % ~ ! d m M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . Defendant Guy John A l l i e s was c o n v i c t e d of f o u r c o u n t s of m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l i n Y e l l o w - s t o n e County D i s t r i c t Court. H e was sentenced to s e r v e c o n s e c u t i v e terms of 40 y e a r s imprisonment on each count i n t h e Montana S t a t e P r i s o n , w i t h o u t p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e . On December 31, 1979, t h i s Court r e v e r s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n and remanded t h e case f o r a new t r i a l . On remand t h e S t a t e charged t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h f o u r c o u n t s o f m i t i g a t e d d e l i b e r a t e homicide, and t h e d e f e n d a n t promptly moved to s u p p r e s s c e r t a i n items of e v i d e n c e . On A p r i l 21, 1980, a h e a r i n g was held on t h e motions t o s u p p r e s s an a l l e g e d state- ment made by t h e d e f e n d a n t t o Cathy T e r r y and p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e c o n s i s t i n g of .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s which were s e i z e d p u r s u a n t t o an a l l e g e d c o n s e n s u a l s e a r c h of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s van. On J u n e 11, 1980, d e f e n d a n t ' s motions to s u p p r e s s t h e t w o items were g r a n t e d . The S t a t e now a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g t h e s t a t e m e n t s and c a r t r i d g e s . The f a c t s r e l e v a n t to t h i s a p p e a l follow. A more d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t of t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e may be found i n S t a t e v. A l l i e s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mon t . , 606 P.2d 1043, 36 St.Rep. 2352. The crimes u n d e r l y i n g t h e case took p l a c e i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, on November 11, 1976. The B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department, i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e crimes, had i d e n t i f i e d Guy John A l l i e s as a p e r s o n who had d e a l t i n d r u g s w i t h t h e homicide v i c t i m s . I n con- n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t v o l u n t a r i l y came to t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n for q u e s t i o n i n g on November 22 and November 23, 1976. During t h e November 23 i n t e r v i e w , o f f i c e r s H i r i s c h i and B e l l noted t h a t A l l i e s had t r o u b l e answering q u e s t i o n s , c o u l d n o t keep names or d a t e s s t r a i g h t and was p o s s i b l y on d r u g s . On November 30, 1976, A l l i e s v o l u n t a r i l y took a polygraph exam. The test took a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e hours. By t h e end of t h e t h r e e hour p e r i o d , d e f e n d a n t was d e s c r i b e d a s " t a l k i n g to t h e walls" and "completely o u t of i t . " On t h e morning of December 9 , 1976, p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a g a i n asked A l l i e s t o come t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . Defendant v o l u n t a r i l y p r e s e n t e d himself a t t h e s t a t i o n around 1 1 :00 a.m. and was t a k e n t o a 1 2 ' x 1 2 ' room on t h e f o u r t h floor. Here he was i s o l a t e d and q u e s t i o n e d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r hours by o f f i c e r s B e l l and Trimarco. H e had n o t had anything t o eat b u t was under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of drugs--namely, methamphetamine, t r i a v i l and morphine. Bef ore t h e s e s s i o n began, B e l l r e a d d e f e n d a n t h i s Miranda r i g h t s o f f a c a r d , and d e f e n d a n t s i g n e d a waiver p r i n t e d on t h e back of t h e c a r d . The o f f i c e r s attempted to employ a "Mutt and J e f f " , o r a "mean cop--nice cop" method of i n t e r r o g a t i o n d u r i n g t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e s e s s i o n . One of t h e o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he g o t a " l i t t l e emotional" d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w . A l l i e s d e s c r i b e d t h e o f f i c e r s as g e n e r a l l y rough, h a r s h and obnoxious. Both o f f i c e r s e v e n t u a l l y t o l d d e f e n d a n t t h a t i f he needed p s y c h i a t r i c h e l p , it was a v a i l a b l e . H e was also t o l d something was wrong w i t h t h e November 30 polygraph test and t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s knew he w a s t h e murderer. H e w a s accused of t h e crimes on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , and t h e q u e s t i o n i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d on how he could l i v e w i t h himself a f t e r committing such b r u t a l acts. I n employing t h i s " g u i l t assumption" method of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , b o t h o f f i c e r s f r e e l y concede t h e y l i e d to d e f e n d a n t about what t h e y knew of h i s c o n n e c t i o n to t h e homicides. They t o l d him he had been p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d and p l a c e d a t t h e s c e n e of t h e crime. A t first d e f e n d a n t ' s s t o r y w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what he had e a r l i e r t o l d D e t e c t i v e H i r i s c h i . H e s a i d he was working on h i s van a t a r e n t e d g a r a g e when t h e homicides occurred and had r e t u r n e d home about 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. on November 11. A f t e r a b o u t twenty m i n u t e s , Trimarco advised d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e y d i d n o t b e l i e v e h i s s t o r y , t h a t he was a s u s p e c t i n t h e homicides, t h a t t h e y knew he was t h e k i l l e r , and t h a t he had p o s i t i v e l y been p l a c e d a t t h e scene of t h e crime. Defendant t h e n changed h i s s t o r y . H e s t a t e d t h a t he had "blacked o u t " a s he was changing o i l and "came to" a t a gro- c e r y s t o r e n e a r t h e v i c t i m s ' house. H e s a i d he could not remember where he was a t t h e t i m e t h e crimes were committed. During t h e q u e s t i o n i n g , d e f e n d a n t was shown a p i c t u r e of one of t h e v i c t i m s a s she was found on November 11. Defendant became u p s e t and v e r y d e p r e s s e d a t t h e i d e a he could have committed such a n a c t . H e began to sob and t h r e a t e n e d to c o m m i t s u i c i d e . H e t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s of h i s heavy drug use; t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e "Space B r o t h e r s " had landed i n Wyoming and were e x e r t i n g a n e v i l i n f l u e n c e o v e r him; t h a t he b e l i e v e d i n w i t c h c r a f t ; and, t h a t h i s ex-wife was a witch who had placed an e v i l c u r s e on him. Defendant s a y s he was s u f f e r i n g from drug withdrawal and a t about 3:00 p.m. asked f o r food t o r e l i e v e h i s d i s c o m f o r t . The o f f i c e r s do n o t r e c a l l such a r e q u e s t . A l l i e s s a i d he thought he needed p s y c h i a t r i c h e l p , and t h e o f f i c e r s expressed t h e o p i n i o n t h a t h i s problem was medical o r mental r a t h e r t h a n c r i m i n a l . H o s p i t a l i z a t i o n a t Warm S p r i n g s was mentioned. During t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e officers t o l d d e f e n d a n t t h e y were not " t o o concerned w i t h drugs" r a t h e r , they were s e e k i n g in£ ormation or evidence p e r t i n e n t to t h e homicides. They s a i d t h e y would l i k e t o s e a r c h h i s house and van f o r homicide e v i d e n c e , and d e f e n d a n t executed t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h : " I , Guy John A l l i e s , GIVE D e t . B e l l and Trimarco WHO HAVE IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES A S POLICE OFFICERS F O R THE CITY OF BILLINGS, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, DO HEREBY CONSENT TO HAVE THEM SEARCH MY HOME OR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 628 No. 14 1965 GMC Van Blue AND I HAVE ALSO BEEN A D V ~ D T H A T I D O N O T H A ~ ~ TOGIVE THESE OFFICERS PERMISSION T O SEARCH MY HOME AND PROPERTY. I AM G I V I N G THIS CONSENT WITHOUT ANY THREATS OR PRESSURES O F ANY TYPE USED AGAINST ME. SIGNED: S/Guy John Allies "WITNESS: S/G. B e l l ADDRESS B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Dept . "WITNESS: S/John Trimarco ADDRESS B.P.D." B e l l and Trimarco l e f t d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e s e n c e a b o u t 3:45 p.m. and were engaged i n s e a r c h i n g t h e house and van from a b o u t 4:00 t o 7:30 p.m. Meanwhile, d e f e n d a n t was l e f t i n t h e f o u r t h f l o o r room. Because of h i s s u i c i d e t h r e a t s , he was "watched" by O f f i c e r s Ward and M i l l a r d . A l l i e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h i s t i m e he asked Ward when he would be allowed t o see an a t t o r n e y and t h a t he w a s t o l d to w a i t u n t i l B e l l and Trimarco r e t u r n e d . Ward denied t h a t t h i s o c c u r r e d . During t h e a f t e r n o o n , b o t h L t . Hensley and Harold H a n s e r , t h e Yellowstone County a t t o r n e y , had been posted on t h e p r o g r e s s of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n . A t approximately 4: 1 5 p.m., Hanser c o n t a c t e d D r . Bryce Hughett, a p s y c h i a t r i s t employed by t h e S t a t e . Hanser informed him t h e r e was a s u s p e c t i n t h e homicides who could n o t remember where he had been when t h e crimes were committed. H e also s a i d t h e s u s p e c t had i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e to s e e a p s y c h i a t r i s t and asked Hughett t o come down. On a r r i v i n g a t t h e s t a t i o n , Hughett was f u r t h e r b r i e f e d on t h e s i t u a t i o n by Hanser and L t . Hensley. Hughett, who f e l t he was a c t i n g as a fact f i n d e r or a s s i s t a n t to t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r and as a d o c t o r , t a l k e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5:00 t o 6: 00 p.m. Hughett s t a t e d t h a t A l l i e s was "calm--spoke q u i e t l y and w i l l i n g l y . 'I The major t o p i c s of d i s c u s s i o n were d e f e n d a n t ' s p a s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s drug abuse problem, and t h e homicides. During t h e i n t e r v i e w , Hughett suggested t h a t sodium amytal, a h y p n o t i c drug, might allow A l l i e s to remember where he had been d u r i n g h i s November 1 1 b l a c k o u t . A f t e r t h e i n t e r v i e w by D r . Hughett, B e l l and Trimarco r e t u r n e d from s e a r c h i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s house and van. They had found d r u g s a t h i s house and a number of .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s i n t h e van. A l l i e s w a s a r r e s t e d f o r p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s and p l a c e d i n j a i l . A t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g i n j u s t i c e c o u r t on December 10, 1976, he asked t o see an attor- ney and w a s t o l d t h a t an a t t o r n e y could be appointed o n l y i n D i s t r i c t Court and t h a t one would be appointed upon h i s appearance i n t h a t c o u r t . A f t e r an i n t e r v i e w w i t h Harold Hanser, t h e d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d to a sodium amytal i n j e c t i o n . The n e x t day A l l i e s w a s t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e p s y c h i a t r i c ward a t Deaconess H o s p i t a l . T h a t e v e n i n g , a f t e r h e a r i n g s t r a n g e n o i s e s from d e f e n d a n t ' s room, a guard e n t e r e d and found d e f e n d a n t crouched on t h e bed, sobbing and s a y i n g , "The D e v i l wants me to h u r t you." The guard c o n t r o l l e d t h e s i t u a t i o n by having A l l i e s pray. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t was i n j e c t e d w i t h sodium amytal and i n t e r r o g a t e d . A l l i e s made s e v e r a l i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e amytal i n t e r v i e w and was convinced t o c o n f e s s t h e n e x t d a y by D r . Hughett. On December 13, 1976, d e f e n d a n t was charged w i t h f o u r c o u n t s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. A l l i e s w a s t r a n s p o r t e d to t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t of W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l on December 23, 1976, where he remained f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks. During t h i s p e r i o d d e f e n d a n t ' s g i r l f r i e n d , Cathy T e r r y , v i s i t e d him f r e q u e n t l y . On each o c c a s i o n she e x t e n s i v e l y q u e s t i o n e d t h e d e f e n d a n t on h i s involvement i n t h e homicides. I n a d e p o s i t i o n t a k e n by t h e Yellowstone County a t t o r n e y i n 1977, s h e s t a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t t o l d h e r on one o c c a s i o n t h a t he "thought he was i n v o l v e d . H e s a i d he d i d n o t know how. H e d i d not know why. But he t h o u g h t he had used h i s own gun t o s h o o t ." Following d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a y a t W a r m S p r i n g s , h i s motion to s u p p r e s s t h e c o n f e s s i o n g i v e n to t h e p o l i c e and t h e e v i d e n c e to which it l e d w a s denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The t r i a l w a s commenced and he w a s c o n v i c t e d of f o u r c o u n t s of m i t i g a t e d d e l i - b e r a t e homicide. T h i s Court r e v e r s e d on appeal b a s i c a l l y f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c o n f e s s i o n was i n v o l u n t a r y due t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o e r c i o n and t h a t it was o b t a i n e d i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l . The d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d to s u p p r e s s i o n of h i s invo- l u n t a r y c o n f e s s i o n and a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d as a r e s u l t of t h e c o n f e s s i o n under t h e " f r u i t of t h e poisonous tree" d o c t r i n e . Upon remand, t h e d e f e n d a n t immediately moved t o s u p p r e s s t h e .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s and t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t made to Cathy T e r r y d u r i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n a t Warm S p r i n g s . The a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t was n o t i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e f i r s t t r i a l as a r e s u l t of a s t i p u l a t i o n e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e Yellowstone County A t t o r n e y and t h e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . The county a t t o r n e y a g r e e d n o t t o a t t e m p t t o i n t r o d u c e t h e s t a t e m e n t i f d e f e n s e coun- s e l would n o t pursue h i s t h e o r y of a common-law m a r r i a g e between t h e d e f e n d a n t and Cathy Terry. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a c t s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court also c o n s i d e r e d t e s t i m o n y con- c e r n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n i n t h e 1980 s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . D r . Hughett t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e b a s i s of what he had been t o l d p r i o r to h i s d i s c u s s i o n w i t h A l l i e s on December 9 and o n t h e b a s i s of t h e d i s c u s s i o n i t s e l f , t h e d e f e n d a n t "could v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h knowledge waive h i s r i g h t s and g i v e per- m i s s i o n f o r t h e s e a r c h , " i n h i s e x p e r t o p i n i o n . The d e t e c t i v e s , Trimarco and B e l l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t A l l i e s appeared t o be normal p h y s i c a l l y , r a t i o n a l , and n o t under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l or drugs. Two o t h e r p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who saw t h e d e f e n d a n t b r i e f l y d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n submitted similar t e s t i m o n y . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e District Court c o n s i d e r e d t e s t i m o n y con- c e r n i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h i s i n t e r r o g a t i o n which c o n t r a d i c t s t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . Hughe tt. D e t e c t i v e B e l l s t a t e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h e d e f e n d a n t was "not v e r y s t a b l e mentally" a t t h e time of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n , based on h i s s t a t e m e n t s concerning w i t c h c r a f t and h i s " b l a c k o u t s . " B e l l f i l e d a w r i t t e n r e p o r t on December 12, 1976, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was m e n t a l l y u n s t a b l e and admitted t h a t it was a " p r e t t y rare o c c a s i o n " f o r him to n o t e a mental c o n d i t i o n . C o n s i d e r a b l e p s y c h i a t r i c t e s t i m o n y was a l s o p r e s e n t e d to t h e District Court. D r . Rich t e s t i f i e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was "involved i n m u l t i p l e d r u g abuse" d u r i n g t h e t i m e s u r r o u n d i n g December 9, based on i n f e c t e d n e e d l e marks and t h e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of d r u g s and p a r a p h e r n a l i a d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t ' s van and r e s i d e n c e . H e also s t a t e d t h a t he had diagnosed d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n as a " B o r d e r l i n e P e r s o n a l i t y D i s o r d e r " , and t h a t " [ e l v e n i n t h e absence of d r u g abuse and/or d r u g dependence, such a p e r s o n w i t h t h i s type of p e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r h a s d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h judgment, long-term p l a n n i n g , and w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e n a t u r a l r e s u l t s of h i s own b e h a v i o r or d e c i s i o n s . " H e concluded t h a t A l l i e s "was n o t c a p a b l e of u s i n g good judgment t o make a d e c i s i o n to s i g n a waiver to allow h i s p r o p e r t y t o be searched." D r . Rich also t e s t i f i e d t h a t A l l i e s v p r o b a b l e drug abuse was n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e t e c t i v e s ' t e s t i m o n y t h a t he appeared normal between t h e p e r i o d of 1 1 : O O a . m . and 3:45 p.m. on December 9, 1976. K a t h e r i n e G a l l a g h e r , a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t employed a t Warm S p r i n g s , prepared a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t . She concluded t h a t A l l i e s w a s " s u f f e r i n g from mental i l l n e s s ; namely s c h i z o p h r e n i a , p a r a n o i d t y p e , - and from h i s a p p a r e n t d r u g addktion." H e r testi- mony i n d i c a t e s t h a t A l l i e s was unable t o f o l l o w through w i t h h i s d e c i s i o n s or make h i s needs or wants known--"he was e a s i l y l e d . " Mrs. G a l l a g h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t would not have been able t o waive h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s i n a knowing, i n t e l l i g e n t or v o l u n t a r y f a s h i o n i n s i g n i n g a c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h c o n s i d e r i n g h i s m e n t a l i l l n e s s , even w i t h o u t c o e r c i o n o r d r u g dependence. She f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n would have made him more d i s t u r b e d t h a n he might have o r d i n a r i l y been. Another p s y c h i a t r i c e x p e r t , D r . Alexander, b a s i c a l l y con- c u r r e d w i t h M r s . G a l l a g h e r ' s testimony, and added t h a t con- s i d e r i n g t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e environment of t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e a c c u s a t o r y n a t u r e of t h e q u e s t i o n i n g , A l l i e s would f e e l t h r e a t e n e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e p s y c h i a t r i c c e r t a i n t y . Judge Luedke e n t e r e d h i s o r d e r s s u p p r e s s i n g t h e .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s and t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t made to Cathy T e r r y on J u n e 11, 1980. H e found t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had not s u s t a i n e d its burden of proving t h a t t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t to s e a r c h was g i v e n v o l u n t a r i l y . It w a s also determined t h a t t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t made t o Cathy T e r r y was i n a d m i s s i b l e under t h e "cat o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e . W e c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h e w r i t - t e n c o n s e n t to s e a r c h executed by t h e d e f e n d a n t on December 9 , 1976 i n v o l u n t a r y ? 2. Whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n concluding t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s admission to Cathy T e r r y must be suppressed under t h e "cat o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e ? W e f i r s t a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e of whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n s u p p r e s s i n g t h e .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s which were disco- v e r e d upon a s e a r c h conducted w i t h t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of t h e d e f e n d a n t . "It is w e l l s e t t l e d under t h e F o u r t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t h a t a s e a r c h conducted w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t i s s u e d upon p r o b a b l e cause is ' p e r se unreasonable . . . s u b j e c t o n l y t o a few s p e c i f i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d and w e l l d e l i n e a t e d e x c e p t i o n s . ' Katz v. United S t a t e s , 389 U.S. 347, 357. . . [Olne of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d e x c e p t i o n s . . . is a s e a r c h con- d u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o c o n s e n t . . ." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043-2044, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 858. P u r s u a n t t o S c h n e c k l o t h , when t h e p r o s e c u t i o n s e e k s t o r e l y upon con- s e n t to j u s t i f y t h e l a w f u l n e s s of a s e a r c h , it h a s t h e burden of p r o v i n g t h a t t h e c o n s e n t w a s f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e n . The test a p p l i e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of c o n s e n t to s e a r c h is t h e same as a p p l i e d to d e t e r m i n e t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of a c o n f e s s i o n . " I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether a d e f e n d a n t ' s w i l l was over- borne i n a p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e [United S t a t e s Supreme] C o u r t h a s a s s e s s e d t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances--both t h e charac- t e r i s t i c s of t h e accused and t h e d e t a i l s of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n . " I n l o o k i n g to t h e f a c t u a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s surrounding t h e c o n f e s s i o n , a c o u r t must assess t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l impact on t h e accused and e v a l u a t e t h e l e g a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of how t h e accused r e a c t e d . S c h n e c k l o t h , 412 U.S. a t 226, 93 S.Ct. a t 2047, 36 S i n c e t h e test a p p l i e d to d e t e r m i n i n g t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of a c o n f e s s i o n and t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h are t h e same, t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n A l l i e s - I s h o u l d c o n t r o l t h e dispo- s i t i o n of t h i s i s s u e . I n d i s c u s s i n g t h e i n v o l u n t a r i n e s s of A l l i e s ' c o n f e s s i o n t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Whether o r n o t d e f e n d a n t was ' i n c u s t o d y ' d u r i n g t h e December 9 i n t e r r o g a t i o n by O f f i c e r s B e l l and Trimarco is n o t p e r t i n e n t to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether h i s u l t i m a t e c o n f e s s i o n was v o l u n t a r y and t h u s a d m i s s i b l e . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h a t s e s s i o n are, however, r e l e v a n t as c o e r c i v e f a c t o r s which f i g u r e i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f , i n t h e t o t a l i t y of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e c o n f e s s i o n is v o l u n t a r y . Many of t h e f a c t o r s have been j u d i c i a l l y condemned as coer- c i v e i n n a t u r e . See g e n e r a l l y Miranda, 384 U.S. a t 445-58, 86 S.Ct. a t 1612-19, 16 L.Ed.2d a t 707-14. These factors i n c l u d e keeping t h e s u s p e c t incom- municado i n a small room; i s o l a t i n g t h e s u s p e c t i n a h o s t i l e p o l i c e environment; t h e mean cop--nice cop i n t e r r o g a t i o n t e c h n i q u e ; and, t h e g u i l t assumption t e c h n i q u e of i n t e r r o g a t i o n . The f a c t o r s do n o t , of themselves, r e n d e r t h e c o n f e s s i o n i n v o l u n t a r y ; t h e y must merely be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e t o t a l i t y of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The e f f e c t of most of t h e above v a r i a b l e s and i n t e r r o g a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s on t h e f i n a l c a l c u l u s is diminished by t h e t i m e l a g between t h e i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n i n g on December 9 and t h e c o n f e s s i o n . A l s o e n t e r i n g i n t o o u r a n a l y s i s is t h e f a c t t h a t , f o r t h e most p a r t , t h e above-described c i r c u m s t a n c e s and methods were n o t r e p e a t e d a f t e r December 9. "Two v a r i a b l e s weigh h e a v i l y i n o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The f i r s t , l y i n g t o d e f e n d a n t a b o u t how much is known about h i s involvement i n t h e crimes, is par- t i c u l a r l y r e p u l s i v e to and t o t a l l y incompatible w i t h t h e c o n c e p t s of due p r o c e s s embedded i n t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . The e f f e c t is p a r t i c u l a r l y c o e r c i v e and i n t h i s case is n o t l e s s e n e d by t h e t i m e l a g between t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e con£ ess i o n . "The second f a c t o r to which w e g i v e weight is t h e ' s u b t l e ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r e s s u r e which was e x e r t e d on A l l i e s from t h e t i m e he f i r s t t a l k e d w i t h B e l l and Trimarco u n t i l t h e t i m e he c o n f e s s e d . The p r e s s u r e of which w e speak l i e s i n l e a d i n g d e f e n d a n t t o b e l i e v e h i s problem w a s 'medical o r p s y c h i a t r i c r a t h e r t h a n c r i m i n a l . ' It began on December 9 when B e l l and Trimarco gave d e f e n d a n t t h e i r o p i n i o n about h i s s i t u a t i o n and t o l d him he could g e t h e l p , p o s s i b l y a t W a r m S p r i n g s . The p r e s s u r e was k e p t up, and t h e i d e a t h a t h i s problem was p s y c h o l o g i c a l was r e i n f o r c e d later on t h e 9 t h i n t h e i n i t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h D r . Hughett." 606 P.2d a t 1050-1051, 36 St.Rep. a t 2361-2362. I n a d d i t i o n to t h e e v i d e n c e of t h e p o l i c e p r o c e d u r e s u t i - l i z e d on December 9 , 1976, t h e District Court a l s o w a s p r e s e n t e d w i t h e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y r e l a t e d to t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental con- d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e he executed t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t to s e a r c h . A s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , t h e e x p e r t testimony of s e v e r a l p s y c h i a t r i s t s r e v e a l s t h a t even a b s e n t t h e c o e r c i v e a s p e c t s of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s d r u g dependence, t h e r e is d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was c a p a b l e of v o l u n t a r i l y and knowingly c o n s e n t i n g t o t h e s e a r c h . T h i s testimony r e v e a l s t h a t t h e defen- d a n t w a s s u f f e r i n g from a mental d i s o r d e r which may have pre- v e n t e d him from making a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n to waive h i s c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r i g h t s . T h i s c o n d i t i o n a l s o was not c o m p l e t e l y unknown t o t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department. On November 30, 1976, A l l i e s became " s q u i r r e l y " d u r i n g a polygraph examination and by t h e end o f t h e i n t e r v i e w he was " t a l k i n g to t h e walls" and was " c o m p l e t e l y o u t of it." On December 9, 1976, p r i o r to c o n s e n t i n g t o t h e s e a r c h , he t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s of h i s heavy drug use; t h a t h e b e l i e v e d t h e "Space B r o t h e r s " had landed i n Wyoming and were e x e r t i n g an e v i l i n f l u e n c e o v e r him; t h a t he b e l i e v e d i n w i t c h c r a f t ; and, t h a t h i s ex-wife was a witch who had placed on e v i l c u r s e on him. Furthermore, af t e r t h e i n t e n s e i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e use of t h e p r e v i o u s l y condemned p o l i c e t e c h n i q u e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t became v e r y d e p r e s s e d , began t o sob, and t h r e a t e n e d to commit s u i c i d e . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e testimony of D r . Rich, D r . Alexander and Mrs. G a l l a g h e r , s e v e r a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and D r . Hughett t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t appeared t o be r a t i o n a l and normal p h y s i c a l l y . I t is t h e S t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e District Court c o m p l e t e l y ignored t h e testimony of t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and D r . Hughett. I t is a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e s e w i t n e s s e s were t h e o n l y p e o p l e who were i n c o n t a c t w i t h A l l i e s on t h e d a t e i n q u e s t i o n and a s a consequence, t h e i r testimony should be g i v e n con- s i d e r a b l e weight. The p r o s e c u t i o n contends t h a t t h e District C o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n not a t t a c h i n g g r e a t weight to D r . H u g h e t t ' s testimony, s i n c e he was t h e o n l y medical e x p e r t t o come i n c o n t a c t with t h e d e f e n d a n t on December, 9, 1979. P r i o r t o d i s c u s s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d of review, it is worthwhile t o n o t e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of e x e c u t i n g a c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h is a f a c t o r to be con- s i d e r e d i n t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A s was s t a t e d i n Schneckloth: " J u s t as was t r u e w i t h c o n f e s s i o n s , t h e r e q u i r e - ment of a ' v o l u n t a r y ' c o n s e n t r e f l e c t s a f a i r a c m ~ ~ a f a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s i n v o l v e d . I n examining a l l t h e surrounding cir- cumstances to d e t e r m i n e i f i n f a c t t h e c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h was c o e r c e d , account must be t a k e n of s u b t l y c o e r c i v e p o l i c e q u e s t i o n s , as w e l l a s t h e p o s s i b l y v u l n e r a b l e s u b j e c t i v e s t a t e of t h e per- s o n who c o n s e n t s . Those s e a r c h e s t h a t are t h e p r o d u c t of p o l i c e c o e r c i o n can t h u s be f i l t e r e d o u t w i t h o u t undermining t h e c o n t i n u i n g v a l i d i t y o f c o n s e n t s e a r c h e s . I n sum, t h e r e is no reason f o r u s to d e p a r t i n t h e a r e a of c o n s e n t s e a r c h e s , from t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of ' v o l u n t a r i n e s s . ' I 1 412 U.S. a t 229, 93 S.Ct. a t 2048-2049, 36 L.Ed.2d a t 864. Turning t o t h e s t a n d a r d of review i n t h e p r e s e n t a p p e a l , w e r e i t e r a t e o u r d i s c u s s i o n i n A l l i e s - I: " I n reviewing s u p p r e s s i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , we a r e governed by t h e f o l l o w i n g w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e s : "'When a motion to s u p p r e s s is p r e s e n t e d to a t r i a l c o u r t , its a n a l y s i s of t h e e v i d e n c e pre- s e n t e d a t t h e p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g must f o c u s on whether i m p e r m i s s i b l e p r o c e d u r e s were followed by law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s . The burden of proof of v o l u n t a r i n e s s is upon t h e S t a t e , and it is r e q u i r e d t o prove v o l u n t a r i n e s s by a pre- ponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e but n o t beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] ' S t a t e v . Smith ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 4 Mont. 334, 338, 523 P.2d 95, 97; s e e a l s o Lego v. Twomey ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618. " 'The q u e s t i o n of v o l u n t a r i n e s s l a r g e l y depends upon t h e f a c t s of each c a s e , no s i n g l e f a c t b e i n g d i s p o s i t i v e . . . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of v o l u n t a r i n e s s , r a t h e r , depends upon t h e " t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ." [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . I' S t a t e v. Lenon ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 264, 570 P.2d 901, 906, . . . see a l s o Greenwald v. Wisconsin ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77; G a l l e g o s v. Colorado ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 370 U.S. 49, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 8 L.Ed.2d 325, 87 ALR2d 614; S t a t e v. Lucero ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 531, 538, 445 P.2d 731, 735. "We emphasize t h a t t h e i s s u e of v o l u n t a r i n e s s is a f a c t u a l one a d d r e s s e d t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . S t a t e v. White ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 226, 234-35, 405 P.2d 761, cert. d e n i e d 384 U.S. 1023, 86 S.Ct. 1955, 16 L.Ed.2d 1026. W e do n o t s i t a s triers of f a c t ; n o r do we l i g h t l y d i s t u r b t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . "Smith and Lenon make it c l e a r t h a t t h e s t a n - d a r d t o be a p p l i e d by t h e t r i a l judge on a s u p p r e s s i o n of admiss i o n s q u e s t i o n is 'preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e ' , b u t when t h e same q u e s t i o n comes t o u s on a p p e a l t o t h e cre- d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e weight t o be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y is f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and o u r review is l i m i t e d to d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l cre- d i b l e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . S t a t e v. Grimestad ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 598 P.2d 198, 203, 36 St.Rep. 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 1 . " 606 P.2d a t 1049-1050, 36 St.Rep. a t 2359-2360. The " t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i n c l u d e s n o t o n l y t h e p o l i c e t e c h n i q u e s employed on December 9, 1976, which w e have a l r e a d y found p a r t i c u l a r l y c o e r c i v e b u t also t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n . Again, t h e burden of proof rests on t h e S t a t e to prove v o l u n t a r i n e s s and t h i s must be shown by a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n had not s u s t a i n e d its burden and on t h e b a s i s of t h e record t h e r e can be no doubt t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t s to s u p p o r t t h a t f i n d i n g . Next, t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n s u p p r e s s i n g t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t made by t h e d e f e n d a n t to Cathy T e r r y under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e . T h i s d o c t r i n e is a p p l i e d i n c a s e s where an i n a d m i s s i b l e c o n f e s s i o n is o b t a i n e d and s u b s e q u e n t l y t h e d e f e n d a n t makes o t h e r i n c u l p a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s summarized t h e d o c t r i n e a s f o l l o w s : "Of c o u r s e , a f t e r an accused h a s once l e t the cat o u t of t h e bag by c o n f e s s i n g , no matter what t h e inducement, he is never t h e r e a f t e r f r e e of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l and p r a c t i c a l d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f having c o n f e s s e d . H e can never g e t t h e cat back i n t h e bag. The secret is o u t f o r good. I n such a s e n s e , a l a t e r c o n f e s s i o n always may be looked upon a s f r u i t of t h e f i r s t . . . .I1 United S t a t e s v. Bayer (13 4 7 ) , 3 3 1 U.S. 532, 540, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1398, 91 L.Ed. 1654, 1660. T h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d o c t r i n e does not always r e s u l t i n an abso- l u t e b a r of t h e s u b s e q u e n t admission. The l a t e r i n c u l p a t o r y sta- t e m e n t s may be rendered a d m i s s i b l e i f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e r e is a "break i n t h e stream of e v e n t s . . . s u f f i c i e n t t o i n s u l a t e t h e f i n a l e v e n t s from t h e e f f e c t of a l l t h a t went b e f o r e . " Darwin v. C o n n e c t i c u t ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 U.S. 346, 349, 88 S.Ct. 1488, 1490, 20 L.Ed.2d 630, 634; See Beecher v. Alabama ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 389 U.S. 35, 88 S.Ct. 189, 1 9 L.Ed.2d 35. I n Bayer, t h e Court found t h a t t h e t a i n t had been removed by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s subsequent freedom from c u s t o d y and t h e passage of s i x months. I n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e Department o b t a i n e d an i n a d m i s s i b l e c o n f e s s i o n on December 12, 1976, w h i l e A l l i e s w a s i n c u s t o d y a t t h e p s y c h i a t r i c ward of Deaconess H o s p i t a l . H e was removed to t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t of W a r m S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l on December 23, 1976. The a l l e g e d s t a t e - ment made t o Cathy T e r r y occurred a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x weeks l a t e r i n response t o T e r r y ' s p e r s i s t e n t q u e s t i o n i n g . The record r e v e a l s t h a t Cathy T e r r y v i s i t e d d e f e n d a n t approximately 42 times w i t h i n a 19-day p e r i o d i n J a n u a r y and February, 1977. The p r o s e c u t i o n c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s remove t h e t a i n t of t h e o r i g i n a l c o n f e s s i o n : (1) Passage -- o f t i m e - t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s o r i g i n a l c o n f e s s i o n occurred on December 12, 1976, and h i s subsequent admission w a s induced i n l a t e J a n u a r y or e a r l y F e b r u a r y of 1977; ( 2 ) Change - i n l o c a t i o n - t h e o r i g i n a l con- f e s s i o n was made i n t h e p s y c h i a t r i c ward of t h e Deaconess H o s p i t a l i n B i l l i n g s w h i l e t h e l a t e r admission occurred a t t h e maximum s e c u r i t y u n i t of t h e Warm S p r i n g s S t a t e H o s p i t a l ; ( 3 ) Manner - o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n - t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n was obtained by p o l i c e o f f i c e r s and a " p s y c h i a t r i s t - i n v e s t i g a t o r " w h i l e t h e sub- s e q u e n t admission was induced by t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mistress, and ( 4 ) R e p r e s e n t a t i o n - by c o u n s e l - t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n occurred w h i l e d e f e n d a n t was not r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l , however an a t t o r - ney had been appointed and had c o n s u l t e d w i t h d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o t h e admission made a t Warm S p r i n g s . Defense counsel contends t h a t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r s under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a r e : t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t i n u o u s i n c a r c e r a t i o n ; t h e s e t t i n g of both admissions is very similar--a h o s p i t a l I s p s y c h i a t r i c ward i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e and Warm S p r i n g s i n t h e l a t e r i n s t a n c e ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t was diagnosed a s being m e n t a l l y ill d u r i n g both t i m e p e r i o d s which rendered him v u l n e r a b l e to succumbing to t h e demands of o t h e r s . Defendant a l s o p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e prosecu- t i o n has t h e burden of proving a break i n t h e s t r e a m of e v e n t s s u f f i c i e n t t o remove t h e t a i n t of t h e o r i g i n a l c o n f e s s i o n . Judge Luedke r e s o l v e d t h e i s s u e a s f o l l o w s : "Weighing t h e c o n t e n t i o n s o f f e r e d , a s w e l l a s t h e e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h e Court, . ". . . t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n is not c a r r i e d by t h e preponderance of t h e evidence. I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e Warm S p r i n g s H o s p i t a l admission was a f r u i t o f t h e p r i o r i n a d m i s s i b l e c o n f e s s i o n is w e l l - t a k e n and h i s motion must be GRANTED." W e a g r e e . I n reviewing t h e c a s e s decided under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e , w e n o t e t h a t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e c a u s a t i v e l i n k between t h e c o n f e s s i o n s h a s been broken is essen- t i a l l y a case-by-case f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Although t h e c a s e s c i t e d by both p a r t i e s a r e a l l f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , with t h e e x c e p t i o n of Bayer t h e s e c a s e s have found t h e c a t o u t of t h e bag d o c t r i n e a p p l i c a b l e i n excluding t h e sub- s e q u e n t admission. Darwin v. Connecticut, s u p r a , ( o n e day b r e a k ) ; Beecher v. Alabama, s u p r a , ( 5 d a y s f o l l o w i n g " g r o s s c o e r c i o n " ) ; C l e w i s v. Texas ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 386 U.S. 707, 87 S.Ct. 1338,18 L.Ed.2d 423, ( 9 d a y s ) ; Commonwealth v. Meehan ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mass. , 387 N.E.2d 527 (spontaneous s t a t e m e n t to a f a m i l y member); Oregon v. Paz ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 3 1 0r.App. 851, 572 P.2d 1036 (immediate phone c a l l t o a f a m i l y member) ; S t a t e v. C u l l i s o n (Iowa 1 9 7 5 ) , 227 N.W.2d 1 2 1 ( o n e day b r e a k ) ; Williams v. U.S. ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 4 ) , 328 F. 2d 669 (one-month b r e a k ) . These c a s e s a l l p l a c e t h e burden of proof upon t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . A s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , Bayer involved a six-month break between t h e c o n f e s s i o n s , and a t t h e t i m e of t h e subsequent admission t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t i n custody. Our d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s t a n d a r d of review under t h e f i r s t i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l a p p l i e s w i t h e q u a l weight to t h i s i s s u e . I n s h o r t , s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e e x i s t s to s u p p o r t t h e District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l e d t o s u s t a i n its burden of p r o o f . I n r e a c h i n g t h i s h o l d i n g , t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t i n u o u s i n c a r c e r a t i o n and t h e f r e q u e n t , per- s i s t e n t q u e s t i o n i n g by Cathy T e r r y weigh h e a v i l y . The District C o u r t ' s o r d e r g r a n t i n g s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e .22 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s and t h e a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t t o Cathy T e r r y is a £ f irmed. Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: .............................. J u s t i c e s Hon. Peter G. D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g place of M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy. M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d i s s e n t i n g : I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t t o t h e holding of t h e majority opinion. I do so on t h e b a s i s of the second confession made by defendant during t h e period of some s i x weeks when he was a p a t i e n t a t t h e Warm Springs S t a t e Hospital. A s noted i n t h e majority opinion, h i s l i v e - i n lady f r i e n d , Cathy Terry, v i s i t e d him frequently while he was a p a t i e n t a t Warm Springs. O n each occasion she questioned defendant a s t o h i s involve- ment i n t h e murders of t h e four members of t h e T i l l o t s o n family. I n a deposition taken by t h e Yellowstone County a t t o r n e y i n 1977, she s t a t e d t h a t t h e defendant t o l d her on one occasion t h a t he "thought he was involved. H e s a i d he d i d n o t know how. H e d i d n o t know why. But he thought he had used h i s own gun t o shoot." Following r e v e r s a l by t h i s Court of h i s f i r s t convic- t i o n , defendant immediately sought suppression of h i s in- voluntary confession and a l l evidence obtained a s a r e s u l t of t h a t confession under t h e " f r u i t of t h e poisonous t r e e " doctrine. This included t h e suppression of . 2 2 c a l i b e r c a r t r i d g e s and t h e above-mentioned statements made t o Cathy Terry during h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n a t Warm Springs. (I p o i n t o u t here t h a t t h e a l l e g e d statement was n o t introduced a t t h e f i r s t t r i a l a s a r e s u l t of a s t i p u l a t i o n entered i n t o between the Yellowstone County a t t o r n e y and defense counsel. The county a t t o r n e y agreed t h a t he would n o t attempt t o introduce the statement i f defense counsel d i d n o t pursue h i s theory of a common-law marriage between defendant and Cathy Terry.) The D i s t r i c t Court, a s noted by the majority, suppressed t h e admission made t o Cathy Terry under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e . I do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e incriminating statement made by defendant was " f r u i t " of h i s alleged i l l e g a l l y obtained confession. The " f r u i t of the poisonous t r e e " d o c t r i n e was f i r s t set f o r t h by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n S i l v e r t h o r n e Lumber Co. v. United S t a t e s (1920), 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319, 24 A.L.R. 1429. I n S i l v e r t h o r n e a f e d e r a l agent seized documents, photographed them, and then returned them t o t h e defendant. The Court held t h a t t h e use of t h e photographs a t t r i a l was improper: ". . . The essence of a provision forbidding t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of evidence i n a c e r t a i n way i s t h a t not merely evidence so acquired s h a l l n o t be used before t h e Court b u t t h a t it s h a l l not be used a t a l l . . . I f knowledge of them i s gained from an independent source they may be proved l i k e any o t h e r s , b u t the knowledge gained by t h e Government's own wrong cannot be used by it i n the way pro- posed. . ." 251 U.S. a t 392. Later, i n Nardone v. United S t a t e s (1939), 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307, t h e Court q u a l i f i e d t h e r u l e of S i l v e r t h o r n e by noting t h a t although t h e r e might be a casual connection between t h e "poisoned tree" and t h e evidence o f f e r e d a t t r i a l , t h e "connection may become s o a t t e n u a t e d as t o d i s s i p a t e t h e t a i n t . " I n Wong Sun v. United S t a t e s (1963), 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 4 4 1 , t h e Supreme Court c l a r i f i e d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e " f r u i t of the poisonous t r e e . " I n Wong Sun t h e Court set f o r t h a two-part test t o determine whether - a subsequent discovery of evidence i s t a i n t e d with t h e primary i l l e g a l i t y : (1) t h e exclusionary r u l e has no a p p l i - c a t i o n where the government l e a r n s of t h e evidence "from an independent source;" and ( 2 ) t h e exclusionary r u l e has no a p p l i c a t i o n where t h e connection between t h e lawless conduct of t h e p o l i c e and t h e discovery of t h e challenged evidence has become so attenuated as t o d i s s i p a t e t h e t a i n t . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n d i c a t e d t h a t a l l evidence i s n o t " f r u i t " simply because it would n o t have come t o l i g h t b u t f o r t h e i l l e g a l a c t i o n s of the p o l i c e . Rather, t h e c o n t r o l l i n g question is, ". . . whether, grant- i n g t h e establishment of a primary i l l e g a l i t y , t h e evidence t o which t h e i n s t a n t o b j e c t i o n is made has been come a t by exploration of t h a t i l l e g a l i t y o r by means s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d t o b e purged by the primary t a i n t . . ." See McQuire, Evidence - of G u i l t , 8222. While the Supreme Court has f a i l e d t o e l a b o r a t e on what i s meant by t h e "independent source" language of Wong -- Sun, t h e lower f e d e r a l c o u r t s and many s t a t e c o u r t s have i n t e r - preted the term i n various ways t o develop exceptions t o t h e " f r u i t of t h e poisonous t r e e " doctrine. Many c o u r t s have accepted the " i n e v i t a b l e discovery" exception t o t h e f r u i t of t h e poisonous t r e e . See The I n e v i t a b l e Discovery Excep- t i o n t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Exclusionary Rules, 74 Columbia --- L. R. 88, 90 (1974). A reading of t h e cases i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e prosecution may succeed i n removing t h e t a i n t when it can be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e incriminating evidence would have been discovered i n absence of t h e i l l e g a l p o l i c e conduct. The burden of proof of t h a t showing r e s t s upon t h e S t a t e . See Alderman v. United S t a t e s (1969), 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176. The problem o f t e n a r i s i n g i n t h e case of confessions i s the e f f e c t of t h e inadmissible confession upon subsequent confessions. The c o u r t s have developed c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a which they u t i l i z e t o determine i f t h e second confession is, under t h e Wong Sun test, purged from t h e primary t a i n t of - t h e f i r s t confession. A frequently c i t e d decision i n t h i s a r e a which b e s t r e f l e c t s t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e of the law i s United S t a t e s v. Bayer (1947), 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654. I n Bayer, which I f e e l i s c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s case, t h e Court d e a l t with t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a second confession obtained from t h e defendant s i x months a f t e r the inadmis- s i b l e confession. The Court upheld t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e second confession, emphasizing t h a t t h e defendant (1) had made t h e second confession s i x months a f t e r t h e f i r s t ; ( 2 ) was n o t under any s o r t of r e s t r a i n t i n h i s freedom during t h e time; and (3) had received a f a i r warning t h a t the second confession might be used a g a i n s t him. However, t h e c o u r t noted : ". . . a f t e r an accused has once l e t t h e c a t o u t of the bag by confessing, no matter what t h e inducement, he i s never t h e r e a f t e r f r e e of t h e psychological and p r a c t i c a l disadvan- tages of having confessed. He can never g e t t h e c a t back i n t h e bag. The s e c r e t i s o u t f o r good. I n such a sense, a l a t e r confes- s i o n always may be looked upon a s f r u i t of t h e f i r s t . But t h i s Court has never gone so f a r a s t o hold t h a t making a confession under circumstances which preclude i t s use, perpe- t u a l l y d i s a b l e s t h e confessor from making a usable one a f t e r those conditions have been removed. . ." 331 U.S. a t 540-541. The a l l e g e d statements of defendant do n o t appear t o m e t o be of a kind which warrants exclusion under any r u l e . I n m y opinion, t h e r e e x i s t s no good reason why a second jury should n o t have been allowed t o hear t h a t evidence.