Case Title: MATTER OF R P S

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-325

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
80-325 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N THE M A T T E R O F R.P. S. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t 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, Montana Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stacey and J a r u s s i , B i l l i n g s , Montana Calvin J. Stacey argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mark J. Murphy argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Robert P. Morin argued, Deputy County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: January 1 9 , 1981 Decided: February 18, 1981 o Clerk 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 . R.P.S. a p p e a l s from t w o o r d e r s of t h e District Court of Yellowstone County, s i t t i n g as t h e Youth Court: (1) denying s u p p r e s s i o n of a l l e g e d i n c r i m i n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s made by R.P.S. r e l a t i n g to a homicide, ( 2 ) t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of R.P.S. from Youth Court to t h e a d u l t c r i m i n a l c o u r t ( i . e . t h e District C o u r t ) . W e a f f i r m both o r d e r s . On November 10, 1979, t h e body of a 16-year-old female w a s found i n an a r e a s o u t h w e s t of t h e B i l l i n g s KOA Campground. An a u t o p s y r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e v i c t i m had been s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d and had d i e d by s t r a n g u l a t i o n . On November 14, t h e s h e r i f f I s o f f ice r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t R.P.S. had burned t h e v i c t i m ' s car. The o f f ice c o n t a c t e d R.P.S. who v o l u n t a r i l y came to t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e w i t h o u t h i s p a r e n t s , waived h i s Miranda r i g h t s , and alle- g e d l y c o n f e s s e d d u r i n g q u e s t i o n i n g . R.P.S. was 1 0 d a y s s h o r t of h i s 1 8 t h b i r t h d a y on t h e d a t e o f t h e a l l e g e d c r i m e s , b u t was 18 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n l e a d i n g t o h i s a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n on November 14. On November 15, a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e Youth Court a l l e g i n g t h a t R.P.S. w a s a d e l i n q u e n t youth by r e a s o n of having committed t h e o f f e n s e s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and s e x u a l i n t e r - c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t . The f o l l o w i n g day t h e S t a t e moved t o t r a n s f e r t h e case t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n o r d e r t o p r o s e c u t e R.P.S. as an a d u l t . Ten days l a t e r R.P.S. f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n o r a d m i s s i o n and a l l p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e d i r e c t l y r e l a t i n g t h e r e t o . On December 17, w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l , R.P.S. made a phone c a l l t o h i s f r i e n d L.S. who w a s h a v i n g a p a r t y a t h i s home. During t h e c o u r s e of t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , L.S. asked R. P.S. i f he r e a l l y d i d it and R. P.S. r e p l i e d "Yeah." R.P.S. t h e n r e l a t e d some of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e o f f e n s e s . The law enforcement o f f i c e r s were not aware of t h i s a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n to L.S. u n t i l J a n u a r y 26, s h o r t l y a£ t e r they had resumed t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . On J a n u a r y 21, 1980, f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , t h e Youth Court, t h e Honorable Diane G. Barz p r e s i d i n g , e n t e r e d a n o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n and a l l p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e d e r i v e d t h e r e f r o m on two grounds: (1) t h a t l a w enforcement o f f i- cers f a i l e d t o o b t a i n a waiver from R.P.S.'s p a r e n t s p r i o r t o q u e s t i o n i n g him as is r e q u i r e d when q u e s t i o n i n g a youth p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 41-5-303, MCA, and ( 2 ) t h a t R.P.S. d i d n o t make a knowing, i n t e l l i g e n t and v o l u n t a r y waiver of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a t t h e t i m e of t h e a l l e g e d q u e s t i o n i n g and c o n f e s s i o n because of h i s i n c a p a c i t y to do so. On appeal w e a f f i r m e d on t h e second ground. I n t h e Matter of R.P.S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . I 613 P.2d 999, 37 St.Rep. 1083. T h e r e a f t e r on J u l y 1, 1980, t h e S t a t e moved to set f o r h e a r i n g its motion to t r a n s f e r t h e case from t h e Youth Court to t h e D i s t r i c t Court. On J u l y 9, R.P.S. f i l e d a n o t h e r motion to s u p p r e s s d i r e c t e d a t e v i d e n c e he a n t i c i p a t e d would be o f f e r e d a t t h e t r a n s f e r h e a r i n g , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n R. P.S. made to L.S. d u r i n g t h e phone c a l l of December 17 and a l l physi- c a l e v i d e n c e d e r i v e d therefrom. A c o n s o l i d a t e d h e a r i n g on t h e two motions was h e l d on J u l y 1 4 i n Youth Court. On August 4, t h e Youth Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , memorandum and o r d e r : (1) denying R. P.S. 's motion t o s u p p r e s s , and ( 2 ) t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case from t h e Youth C o u r t to t h e District Court f o r p r o s e c u t i o n of R. P.S. as an a d u l t . R.P.S. now a p p e a l s from t h e s e t w o o r d e r s . Following t h e S t a t e ' s motion t o e x p e d i t e t h e h e a r i n g and t h e f i l i n g of w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s of f a c t by opposing c o u n s e l , we g r a n t e d t h e S t a t e ' s motion and heard t h e a p p e a l on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1981. R. P.S. has been i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l c o n t i n u o u s l y s i n c e November 14, 1979. On a p p e a l , R. P. S. advances t w o p r i n c i p a l arguments sup- p o r t i n g s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n of December 17. F i r s t he a r g u e s t h a t h i s a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n of December 17 to h i s f r i e n d L.S. was t h e r e s u l t of h i s i n v a l i d and suppressed con- f e s s i o n of November 14 t o l a w enforcement o f f i c e r s ; hence t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n of December 17 is " f r u i t of t h e poisonous tree" and i n a d m i s s i b l e under S i l v e r t h o r n e Lumber Co. v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed 319, and its progeny. Secondly, R. P.S. c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n o f December 17 is i n a d m i s s i b l e because once he confessed on November 14, he " l e t t h e cat o u t of t h e bag" and any s u b s e q u e n t c o n f e s s i o n made under v i r t u a l l y t h e same c o n d i t i o n s s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d . According to R.P.S., t h e r e was n o t a s u f f i c i e n t break i n t h e c h a i n of e v e n t s t o remove t h e primary t a i n t of t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n and "put t h e c a t back i n t h e bag," c i t i n g United S t a t e s v. Bayer ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 3 3 1 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 9 1 L.Ed.2d 1654 and r e l a t e d cases. The S t a t e , on t h e o t h e r hand, c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n f o r - m a t i o n l e a d i n g t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n to L.S. came from an independent s o u r c e u n r e l a t e d t o t h e f i r s t inad- m i s s i b l e and suppressed c o n f e s s i o n of November 14; hence t h e second c o n f e s s i o n is u n t a i n t e d by t h e first and is n o t s u b j e c t to s u p p r e s s i o n as " f r u i t of t h e poisonous tree." The S t a t e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e second a l l e g e d c o n f e s s i o n is n o t rendered inad- m i s s i b l e under t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e because 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 surrounding t h e second c o n f e s s i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t it was v o l u n t a r y and s u f f i c i e n t l y a t t e n u a t e d from t h e f i r s t t o remove any t a i n t . W e f i n d t h a t t h e f r u i t of t h e poisonous t r e e d o c t r i n e does n o t p r e v e n t t h e use of t h e second c o n f e s s i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n l e a d i n g t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e second c o n f e s s i o n came from a n i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e , and t h u s t h e c o n f e s s i o n was c l e a n s e d of any " p r i m a r y t a i n t . " The " f r u i t of t h e poisonous tree" d o c t r i n e , as p a r t of t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e , was f i r s t d i s c u s s e d by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n S i l v e r t h o r n e Lumber Co. v. U.S. ( 1 9 2 0 ) , 251 U.S. 385, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed 319. It f o r b i d s t h e use of e v i d e n c e which comes t o l i g h t as a r e s u l t of t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n of an i n i - t i a l i l l e g a l a c t of t h e p o l i c e . S i l v e r t h o r n e , s u p r a , 251 U.S. a t 392, 40 S.Ct. a t 183, 64 L.Ed a t 321. But i n S i l v e r t h o r n e and i n l a t e r cases, t h e Court made it clear t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d as t h e r e s u l t of an i n i t i a l i l l e g a l i t y does n o t become f o r e v e r u n a v a i l a b l e o r i n a c c e s s i b l e . C e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s c a n purge t h e e v i d e n c e of its "primary t a i n t . " The Supreme Court s a i d i n Wong Sun v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. "We need n o t hold t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e is ' f r u i t of t h e poisonous tree' s i m p l y 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 o f t h e p o l i c e . R a t h e r , t h e more a p t q u e s t i o n i n such a c a s e is ' w h e t h e r , g r a n t i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t h e primary i l l e g a l i t y , t h e e v i d e n c e t o which i n s t a n t o b j e c t i o n is made h a s been come a t by e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h a t i l l e g a l i t y or i n s t e a d 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 a b l e to be purged o f t h e primary t a i n t . ' " 371 U.S. a t 488, 8 3 S.Ct. a t 417, 9 L.Ed.2d a t 455. I f t h e same f a c t s are d i s c o v e r e d by t h e S t a t e from a n i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e , such e v i d e n c e may be found to be c l e a n s e d of a n y t a i n t and becomes "unpoisoned . I' S i l v e r t h o r n e , s u p r a , 251 U.S. a t 392, 40 S.Ct. a t 183, 64 L.Ed a t 321. Such e v i d e n c e can be used i n c o u r t o r can be used t o o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . The q u e s t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t case, t h e n , is whether t h e i n f o r - m a t i o n l e a d i n g to t h e q u e s t i o n i n g of L.S., which r e s u l t e d i n t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e second c o n f e s s i o n , w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y independent t o r e n d e r t h e second c o n f e s s i o n a d m i s s i b l e . The homicide w a s d i s c o v e r e d on November 10, 1979. An e n t r y i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g d e t e c t i v e ' s f i l e , d a t e d November 11, 1979, c o n t a i n e d t h e name of L.S., i n d i c a t i n g t h a t L.S. w a s a f r i e n d of t h e v i c t i m . R.P.S. was a r r e s t e d and confessed on November 14, 1979, and i n t h a t c o n f e s s i o n mentioned t h a t L.S. was a f r i e n d of h i s . On November 17, 1979, one of t h e o t h e r d e t e c - t i v e s r e c e i v e d information t h a t a s t u d e n t (B.M.) was t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e homicide a t high school. B.M. was interviewed on November 26, and a t t h a t t i m e B.M. i n d i c a t e d t h a t p r i o r t o R. P. S. 's a r r e s t , R. P. S. had given some information concerning t h e murder t o L.S. and B.M. L. S. was interviewed f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on J a n u a r y 26. O n November 26, R.P.S. f i l e d h i s motion to s u p p r e s s h i s November 14 c o n f e s s i o n . On December 17, R. P.S. gave h i s second c o n f e s s i o n to L.S. On J a n u a r y 21, t h e t r i a l c o u r t held t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n i n a d m i s s i b l e , and t h e S t a t e began its i n v e s t i g a t i o n anew. The December 17 c o n f e s s i o n was r e v e a l e d i n t h e J a n u a r y 26 i n t e r v i e w of L.S. D e t e c t i v e N e w e l 1 t e s t i f i e d t h a t he began h i s second i n v e s t i g a t i o n on t h e b a s i s of t h e e n t r i e s i n h i s f i l e r e f e r r i n g t o L.S. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d not u t i l i z e t h e r e f e r e n c e t o L.S. c o n t a i n e d i n R.P.S. I s f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n i n seeking o u t L.S., n o r d i d he r e c a l l even being aware of t h a t r e f e r e n c e . I n summmary, h i s testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t even i f t h e name of L.S. came t o l i g h t a s a r e s u l t of an i n i t i a l i l l e g a l i t y , t h i s same information was discovered independently, t h r e e days p r i o r t o t h e g i v i n g of t h e i n v a l i d c o n f e s s i o n . Thus we do not c o n s i d e r t h e evidence t o be t h e product of any e x p l o i t a t i o n of a p r i o r i l l e g a l i t y , and w e f i n d it to be a d m i s s i b l e . W e need n o t make t h e f i n d i n g which t h e S t a t e urges t h i s Court to make, t h a t t h e r e was no p o l i c e misconduct and t h e r e f o r e no " t a i n t " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i n i t i a l con£ e s s i o n . Because t h e independent s o u r c e d o c t r i n e allows t h e use of t h e c o n f e s s i o n i n this case, w e need n o t determine what degree of p o l i c e m i s - conduct, ranging from i n t e n t i o n a l t o i n a d v e r t e n t , s e r v e s t o t a i n t t h e evidence, f o r purposes of invoking t h e p r o t e c t i o n s of t h e " f r u i t s " d o c t r i n e . A p p e l l a n t n e x t argues t h a t t h e second c o n f e s s i o n must be suppressed because of t h e " c a t o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e . The - 6 - t r i a l judge r e j e c t e d t h i s argument, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was "a c l e a r showing t h e second s t a t e m e n t was v o l u n t a r i l y made and w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y i n s u l a t e d and d i s a s s o c i a t e d from t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t t o avoid any t a i n t . " W e f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t f i n d i n g and a f f i r m t h e District C o u r t ' s r u l i n g t h a t t h e second c o n f e s s i o n is a d m i s s i b l e . J u s t i c e Jackson f i r s t formulated " t h e cat o u t of t h e bag" d o c t r i n e i n 1947, i n United S t a t e s v. Bayer ( 1 9 4 7 ) , 3 3 1 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 9 1 L.Ed.2d 1654. I t is a p p l i e d i n cases i n which a n 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 defen- d a n t makes a f u r t h e r c o n f e s s i o n . S t a t e v. A l l i e s ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . - 1 - P. 2d , 37 St.Rep. 2089, 2098. The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e d o c t r i n e : "Of c o u r s e , a f t e r an accused h a s once l e t t h e 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 of h a v i n g c o n f e s s e d . H e can never g e t t h e c a t back i n t h e bag. The secret is o u t f o r good. I n s u c h 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 as f r u i t of t h e f i r s t . But t h i s C o u r t h a s never gone s o f a r a s to hold t h a t making a c o n f e s s i o n under c i r c u m s t a n c e s which p r e c l u d e its u s e , p e r p e t u a l l y d i s a b l e s t h e con- f e s s o r from making a u s e a b l e one a f t e r t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s have been removed. " United S t a t e s v. Bayer, s u p r a , 331 U.S. a t 540-541, 67 S.Ct. a t T h i s Court endorsed t h i s d o c t r i n e i n its December 31, 1980, o p i n i o n i n S t a t e v. A l l i e s , s u p r a , f i n d i n g i n t h a t case t h a t A l l i e s ' l a t e r s t a t e m e n t s were i n a d m i s s i b l e because t h e r e was n o t a " ' b r e a k 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 to insu- 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 . ' " Whether or n o t t h e " c a u s a t i v e l i n k " between t h e t w o c o n f e s s i o n s h a s been broken s u f f i c i e n t l y to remove t h e t a i n t must be d e t e r - mined on a case-by-case b a s i s , and t h e burden is on t h e S t a t e to show t h a t t h e second s t a t e m e n t is n o t t a i n t e d by t h e p r i o r inva- l i d c o n f e s s i o n o r s t a t e m e n t . A l l i e s , s u p r a , Mont. a t I I n making o u r f i n d i n g i n A l l i e s , w e looked a t t h e - 7 - c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g each c o n f e s s i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s e r v e d t o i n v a l i d a t e t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n c a r r i e d o v e r to make t h e second one l i k e w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , we c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a s s a g e of t i m e , t h e change i n l o c a t i o n , t h e manner of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , whether t h e r e was r e p r e - s e n t a t i o n by c o u n s e l , and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s mental c o n d i t i o n . A l l i e s , s u p r a , Mont. a t -1 - P.2d a t , 37 St.Rep. a t 2098-2099. I n A l l i e s . we found t h a t t h e 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 p e r s i s t e n t q u e s t i o n i n g ( 4 2 times) by A l l i e s ' g i r l f r i e n d throughout t h e six-week p e r i o d mandated a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e w a s an i n s u f f i c i e n t break i n t h e c a u s a t i v e c h a i n . I n a d d i t i o n to t h e f a c t o r s we c o n s i d e r e d i n A l l i e s , we f i n d s e v e r a l o t h e r f a c t o r s c i t e d by o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o be r e l e v a n t i n making a d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n t h i s case: p o l i c e conduct, oppor- t u n i t y t o t a l k with f a m i l y and f r i e n d s , and whether t h e d e f e n d a n t is i n a p o s i t i o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t h i s f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n h a s made h i s p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n h o p e l e s s . Comm. v. Meehan ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mass. , 387 N.E.2d 527, 537, cert. d i s m i s s e d , 445 U.S. 39, 100 S.Ct. 1092, 63 L.Ed.2d 185; Knott v. Howard (1st C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) , 5 1 1 F.2d 1060, 1061. R.P.S. f i r s t confessed i n t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e w h i l e being q u e s t i o n e d about t h e burning of t h e v i c t i m ' s car. T h i r t y - t h r e e d a y s later, he confessed a g a i n , t h i s t i m e w h i l e i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Yellowstone County j a i l . The f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n was made d u r i n g an i n t e r r o g a t i o n by t h e S t a t e ; t h e second came d u r i n g a phone call which R.P.S. v o l u n t a r i l y made t o L.S., and a b o u t which t h e S t a t e had no knowledge. The second c o n f e s s i o n w a s n o t t h e r e s u l t of p e r s i s t e n t q u e s t i o n i n g as i n A l l i e s ; L.S. t e s t i f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e phone c a l l , he asked R.P.S. i f he had done it, and R.P.S. r e p l i e d , "Yeah," and t h e n gave d e t a i l s . P o l i c e misconduct, i f any, a p p e a r s to have been i n a d v e r t e n t a t t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n ; p o l i c e were n o t p r e s e n t and had no knowledge of t h e second c o n f e s s i o n u n t i l a month a f t e r it w a s made. R. P.S. had appointed counsel p r i o r t o making t h e second c o n f e s s i o n and had appeared i n c o u r t w i t h counsel i n o r d e r to g e t h i s f i r s t con- f e s s i o n suppressed. R. P.S. was aware, t h e n , a t t h e t i m e of t h e second c o n f e s s i o n t h a t t h e r e was a d e c i s i o n pending which could p u t t h e " c a t back i n t h e bag." R. P.S. I s f a m i l y appears to have been s u p p o r t i v e and came t o see him a t l e a s t 18 times between t h e a r r e s t and t h e second c o n f e s s i o n . These f a c t o r s , when taken a s a whole, i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t break i n t h e c h a i n of e v e n t s which purged any t a i n t from t h e second c o n f e s s i o n . Admittedly, R. P.S., l i k e A l l i e s , was i n c a r c e r a t e d throughout t h e p e r i o d , b u t t h i s f a c t o r a l o n e does n o t r e q u i r e s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e second s t a t e m e n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t R. P.S. 's mental c o n d i t i o n precluded h i s e v e r making any a d m i s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t s concerning t h e a l l e g e d crimes, once he had confessed. W e d i s a g r e e . A t t h e h e a r i n g to s u p p r e s s t h e f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n , D r . T r a n e l , who had conducted a p s y c h i a t r i c examination of R. P.S. , t e s t i f i e d t h a t R. P.S. could not understand t h e " a b s t r a c t terms" c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Miranda warning. H e concluded t h e r e f o r e t h a t R.P.S. could n o t make a knowing, v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t waiver of h i s r i g h t s . A f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g h i s testimony and o t h e r con£ l i c t i n g testimony, t h e d i s t r i c t judge found t h a t "it is impossible to make a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e youth i n t h i s c a s e made a knowing, i n t e l l i g e n t and v o l u n t a r y waiver of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ." W e af f irmed t h a t f i n d i n g of t h e District Court on t h e f i r s t a p p e a l . I n t h e Matter of R.P.S., s u p r a . A t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion to s u p p r e s s t h e second c o n f e s s i o n , R.P.S. made no a l l e g a t i o n t h a t he was s u f f e r i n g from any mental i l l n e s s on December 17 which would i n v a l i d a t e h i s c o n f e s s i o n , and t h e r e was no evidence introduced w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s mental c o n d i t i o n . The f i n d i n g t h a t R.P.S. was i n c a p a b l e of waiving h i s Miranda r i g h t s on November 14 was simply not rele- v a n t to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e circumstances of t h e December 17 c o n f e s s i o n , because t h e r e was no q u e s t i o n of waiver involved i n t h e second c o n f e s s i o n . The second c o n f e s s i o n was made volun- t a r i l y to a n o n p o l i c e p e r s o n , a s i t u a t i o n which does n o t r e q u i r e any u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f , n o r waiver o f , t h e Miranda r i g h t s . I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e A l l i e s s i t u a t i o n , i n which A l l i e s w a s found to be 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 , R.P.S. w a s found o n l y to b e i n c a p a b l e of waiving h i s r i g h t s i n making h i s f i r s t c o n f e s s i o n . T h i s f a c t is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a f i n d i n g t h a t R.P.S. was m e n t a l l y i n c a p a b l e of making a later, v o l u n t a r y state- ment t o a f r i e n d who was o u t s i d e of j a i l . The d i s t r i c t judge found t h a t t h e second c o n f e s s i o n w a s v o l u n t a r i l y made and s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s a s s o c i a t e d from t h e f i r s t t o be a d m i s s i b l e . A s t h i s f i n d i n g is supported by 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 , w e w i l l n o t d i s t u r b it. W e a£ f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e Youth Court f i n d i n g t h e second c o n f e s s i o n a d m i s s i b l e and t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e case t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . , -7 W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e