Case Title: State v. Craig

Citation: 237 So. 2d 737

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1970-06-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
237 So. 2d 737 (1970)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Ralph CRAIG, Respondent.
No. 38179.

Supreme Court of Florida.
June 17, 1970.
Rehearing Denied July 17, 1970.
*738 Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
L.B. Vocelle, Vero Beach, and C. Wendell Harris, Merritt Island, for respondent.
ADKINS, Justice.
This cause is before the Court for review on conflict certiorari of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported in Craig v. State, 216 So. 2d 19.
The defendant was charged by an indictment with murder in the first degree and the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree. During the trial a statement made by the defendant was admitted into evidence. The District Court held that sufficient preinterrogation warnings were not given defendant and the record failed to show that defendant waived his right to counsel because during the interrogation he stated that "in a way" he would like to have an attorney but concluded that he did not "see how it can help me."
At about noon on Saturday, the day after the homicide, defendant voluntarily surrendered to Deputy McCants, who immediately advised him not to make any statements. The defendant insisted upon talking and made inquiry as to the condition of the victim. He was told that the victim had died.
After the defendant was transported to the jail, Inspector Pease orally warned him of his rights to have an attorney and to remain silent. Defendant was also warned that anything said could be and would be used against him in court. Inspector Pease put these warnings in writing, explaining each of them as they were being written. This procedure continued for 30 or 45 minutes. The defendant signed his name by each written warning as it was explained to him. The result was the following:
In the meantime, the family of defendant had secured counsel for him and had notified a deputy that the defendant had an attorney. Before Inspector Pease began his explanation of defendant's rights, the defendant was given an opportunity to make telephone calls and to communicate with any person outside the jail. The defendant refused to make any telephone calls and expressed no desire to communicate with anyone. This opportunity was available to the defendant Saturday afternoon and Saturday night.
On Sunday morning an Assistant State Attorney came to the jail with the official court reporter and an investigator for the purpose of interrogating the defendant. Once again the defendant was warned in the following manner:
The Assistant State Attorney then advised defendant that anything he said could be used against him and would be used against him in Court. Defendant was advised that a charge of first degree murder was pending against him and he was being held on this charge. The defendant admitted that no one had threatened him or made any promises to him. In fact, defendant said "they have treated me as good as anybody ever treated me." The following then occurred:
When the above factual situation is considered, it is apparent that the decision of the District Court conflicts with Ortiz v. State, 212 So. 2d 57 (Fla.App. 3d Dist. 1968) as well as Key v. State, 194 So. 2d 664 (Fla.App. 1967). We have jurisdiction.
Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), sets out the standards required in advising defendant of his constitutional rights, but does not require the officer to give these standards verbatim as set forth in the opinion of the Court. The Miranda decision only requires that the defendant be adequately and fully informed of these rights prior to the time any interrogation takes place.
In the case sub judice the defendant voluntarily surrendered himself to the officer and admitted that he was treated well while in custody. From the very beginning he was advised to remain silent. He was adequately advised as to all of his rights under the Miranda decision on Saturday afternoon and again on Sunday morning, and he was not prevented from securing counsel. Finally, defendant said he was not anxious to get a lawyer because he didn't think it would help him.
If the defendant felt that his welfare would best be served without an attorney, he certainly had the right to proceed with the statement in the absence of counsel. When defendant expressed the opinion that an attorney could not help him, the interrogator was not required to convince the defendant that he needed counsel. The Miranda decision does not require the interrogator to give legal advice, but only that defendant is told his constitutional rights and makes an intelligent waiver of counsel. The determination for need of counsel is the defendant's prerogative.
In Brisbon v. State, 201 So. 2d 832 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1967), the Court said:
In discussing the strong presumption against waivers and the standards of proof needed to overcome the presumption, the Court in the Miranda decision relied upon Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. *741 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938), in which the Court unequivocally stated:
The Miranda decision never contemplated that waiver of counsel could be accomplished only by the use of the words, "I am willing to answer questions without the services of a lawyer." There is no magic in these words. Any clear and unambiguous conduct by a person who has been advised of his rights which indicates his willingness to answer questions without a lawyer is surely sufficient. A verbal acknowledgment of understanding and willingness to talk, followed by conduct which is consistent only with a waiver of his right to have a lawyer present, by one who has been advised of his rights, constitutes an effective waiver of his right to counsel at that stage of the proceeding.
In determining whether proper warnings with respect to right to counsel and right to remain silent have been given to a suspect, factors to be considered are whether the suspect understood that he did not have to speak, the consequences of speaking, and that he had a right to counsel before and while doing so if he wished.
A statement by the accused that he fully understands and waives his rights is not an essential link in the chain of proof. Waiver may be shown by attendant circumstances. United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir.1967), certiorari denied, 390 U.S. 1006, 88 S. Ct. 1250, 20 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1968).
For the foregoing reasons the decision of the District Court is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions that the judgment and sentence of the trial court be affirmed.
DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
MANN, District Court Judge, dissents with opinion.
MANN, District Court Judge (dissenting).
After a Friday night tavern argument which culminated in Craig's shooting Aughtman Cruce he fled, then later surrendered to officers voluntarily. Their efforts at interrogation are explained in the transcript:
Craig signed a statement which complies with Miranda, acknowledging that he was advised of his rights, but it contains no mention of the shooting for reasons which are clear from the transcript of the next day's interrogation.
Sometime "shortly after ten o'clock" on Sunday morning Craig's attorney was in the jail and asked to see him. There is a memorandum which states that when the statement was finished the jailer "advised this RO that Mr. L.B. Vocelle, attorney at law, was in the jail office and wished to *743 speak to the defendant at this time." Craig was then allowed to see his counsel.
A longer excerpt from the transcript of the questionable statement follows:
The state argues two cases as in conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. These are Ortiz v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So. 2d 57, and Key v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So. 2d 664.
Key is not even remotely in point. There post-conviction relief was sought from judgments founded on guilty pleas after "the trial judge patiently and meticulously explained to the defendant his right to counsel, and questioning by the court brought answers from the defendant which disclosed he understood his right to counsel and the effect of proceeding without counsel." I cannot find the slightest merit in the suggestion that Key is in conflict with the Fourth District's decision in Craig, or that the Fourth District would have decided Key differently.
Ortiz is a more difficult problem. The record in Ortiz, which I have examined, indicates that the warnings quoted in the footnote to that case were found insufficient by the trial judge, and Ortiz' statement was admitted only after further questioning. I agree that Ortiz was rightly decided, however, as I think this case was in the District Court, and that the opinion was not intended as a full-scale exposition of the point of law involved. Even so, it is impossible to find conflict between Ortiz and Craig, without misinterpreting Miranda. It is possible to find these cases in conflict if we view Miranda warnings as a ritual incantation required to be delivered in some set manner. I reject this view.
For example, if the record reflects knowledge of rights other than through the ritual reading from a "rights card" the element of understanding is present. Consider Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 1967, 210 Pa.Super. 360, 233 A.2d 904, in which a judge who was charged with embezzlement was held to have understandingly waived his right to silence although no Miranda warning was given.[1] On the other *745 hand, Craig's conversation with the officers indicates misunderstanding of the extent and immediacy of his right to counsel. There is nothing in Ortiz to indicate a similar misunderstanding.
What we must look for in these cases is both understanding and waiver. Both are lacking here. The facts vary so widely from Ortiz that I cannot find that the Fourth District has applied a rule in Craig different from that applied by the Third District in Ortiz. Only if Miranda is held to prescribe some set ritual incantation, which is sufficient to show understanding regardless of the suspect's reaction can we hold the Fourth District in error here.
There is a suggestion in Frazier v. Cupp, 1969, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S. Ct. 1420, 22 L. Ed. 2d 684, which involved a confession taken prior to Miranda, that an indication on the suspect's part that he "had better get a lawyer" might require cessation of inquiry if Miranda were operative
I would not go as far as the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sullins v. United States, 1968, 389 F.2d 985, which seems to require a positive rejection of counsel. But the majority in this case mistake confusion and ambiguous conduct for a clear and unambiguous waiver. Such a holding, constitutional or not  and I think it is not  makes a fuzzy standard for our policemen to follow.
I agree with Judge Friendly's thesis[2] that the Constitution is ill adopted as a precise code of criminal procedure.
What the majority do here is encourage law enforcement officers to speculate whether an accused who indicates confusion and a desire to speak to his already retained attorney understands and waives his right to counsel. It is better to require a clear waiver. The consequence of today's decision is that Florida's law enforcement officers, who are presently following Miranda admirably, are encouraged to proceed without caution when proceeding with caution it is so simple.
It is this court's mission to clarify the law, not confuse it. I would discharge the writ as unwisely, if not wrongly, granted.[3]
[1]  But cf. State v. Ross, 1968, 183 Neb. 1, 157 N.W.2d 860; Cardwell v. Commonwealth, 1968, 209 Va. 68, 161 S.E.2d 787; Montoya v. United States, 5 Cir., 1960, 392 F.2d 731. In Dickey v. State, Wyo. 1968, 444 P.2d 373, an accused known to be financially able to employ counsel, was not advised of his right to appointed counsel. The statement was properly admitted. See footnote 43 to Miranda v. Arizona, 1965, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 384 U.S. 436. The California Supreme Court has said that the purpose of Miranda warnings is to establish safeguards which free courts from the necessity of adjudicating whether coercive influences have been used to obtain confessions. People v. Fioritto, 1968, 68 Cal. 2d 714, 68 Cal. Rptr. 817, 441 P.2d 625.
[2]  Benchmarks. His chapter entitled "The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Procedure," also appears as an article at 53 Cal.L.Rev. 929 (1965). His chapter on Miranda is not published elsewhere.
[3]  Both the District Court and this one do not discuss Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977. Discussion of Escobedo, which may have underlain Judge Cross' concurrence in the result, was unnecessary there, but not on the view of the case taken by the majority here.