Title: State v. Pruitt

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

212 S.E.2d 92 (1975)
286 N.C. 442
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Frank PRUITT, II.
No. 30.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
March 12, 1975.
*95 Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by Asst. Attys. Gen. William W. Melvin and William B. Ray, Raleigh, for the State.
Donald W. Grimes, Fayetteville, for defendant.
BRANCH, Justice.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash each bill of indictment on grounds that the North Carolina statutes imposing the death penalty for the crimes charged are unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. This Court considered and rejected this identical argument in State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E.2d 721. Accord: State v. Sparks, 285 N.C. 631, 207 S.E.2d 712; State v. Honeycutt, 285 N.C. 174, 203 S.E.2d 844; State v. Fowler, 285 N.C. 90, 203 S.E.2d 803; State *96 v. Dillard, 285 N.C. 72, 203 S.E.2d 6. This assignment of error is overruled on authority of these cases.
Defendant next assigns as error the overruling of his objection to the admission into evidence of defendant's response to questions asked him by Deputy Robert Hallisey at the scene of the fire. He relies upon a single paragraph from a written statement given by Fire Chief Goodman, which was offered into evidence solely to corroborate Goodman's testimony. The statement upon which defendant relies is as follows:
Deputy Hallisey testified that he arrived at the scene of the fire at 7:00 a. m. and talked with Fire Chief Jimmy Goodman. Hallisey further testified:
We recognize that procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination are necessary whenever law enforcement officers question a person who has been "taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his [liberty] in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694. When custodial interrogation begins is a question which has generated much judicial discussion. See Annotation, 31 A.L.R.3rd 565.
The holding in Miranda does not extend to normal investigative activities conducted prior to arrest, detention, or charge. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; State v. Oxentine, 270 N.C. 412, 154 S.E.2d 529. Justice Bobbitt (later Chief Justice), writing for the Court in State v. Meadows, 272 N.C. 327, 158 S.E.2d 638, aptly stated the rule distinguishing general police investigation from custodial interrogation:
Accord: State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 203 S.E.2d 849; State v. Gladden, 279 N.C. 566, 184 S.E.2d 249; State v. Shedd, 274 N.C. 95, 161 S.E.2d 477; State v. Hayes, 273 N.C. 712, 161 S.E.2d 185.
A careful contextual reading of the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Hallisey discloses that when defendant made the statement to Hallisey, the Deputy was engaged *97 in a general on-the-scene investigation which was obviously directed to whether there were persons in the burning dwelling. There was nothing to suggest an in-custody interrogation or that the investigation had been focused upon defendant as the perpetrator of a crime.
Further, Chief Goodman had already testified without objection to substantially the same facts. It is well established that when evidence is admitted over objection and the same evidence has theretofore or thereafter been admitted without objection, the benefit of the objection is lost. State v. Jarrette, supra; State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839; 1 D. Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 30 (Brandis Rev.).
We find no merit in this assignment of error.
Defendant next contends that the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the oral and written confessions allegedly made by defendant.
When Lt. Smith testified that defendant was carried to the Sheriff's Department and warned of his constitutional rights by Sgt. Conerly, counsel for defendant requested a voir dire to determine the admissibility of any statements made by defendant in the form of a confession. Thereupon, the trial judge excused the jury, and Sgt. Conerly, in summary, testified as follows: After Pruitt was placed under arrest, he was carried to a seven-by-seven fluorescent lighted room at the rear of the Sheriff's Department for interrogation. This room was used because its location insured privacy. Lt. Smith, Sgt. Conerly, Officer Martin, and defendant were in the room during the interrogation. All of the officers participated in the questioning. Before questioning commenced, Sgt. Conerly read the following material from a plastic card:
Defendant indicated that he understood his rights and did not indicate that he wanted a lawyer. He then gave defendant a "Voluntary Statement" form (Exhibit 44), which defendant read and signed. The form reads as follows:
Defendant then made an oral statement which was reduced to writing.
On cross-examination Sgt. Conerly stated that the interrogation began immediately after defendant signed Exhibit 44. He further testified:
The written statement which defendant signed before Magistrate J. B. Darden, Jr., was in pertinent part as follows:
The Court found that the officers did not threaten defendant or offer him any inducement of any kind during the interrogation and that it appeared to Officer Conerly that defendant was normal in every respect during the interrogation. Upon these findings *100 the Court concluded that defendant's statement was voluntarily and knowingly made without inducement and coercion and after defendant had been fully advised of his constitutional rights. The Court thereupon denied defendant's motion to suppress.
Defendant offered no evidence on voir dire.
The jury returned, and Sgt. Conerly testified before the jury to facts similar to those contained in defendant's confessions.
The trial judge properly excused the jury and heard evidence as to whether defendant's alleged oral and written confessions were voluntarily and understandingly made. State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E.2d 511; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E.2d 1, cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911, 87 S. Ct. 860, 17 L. Ed. 2d 784; State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517, 142 S.E.2d 344, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 375 U.S. 28, 84 S. Ct. 137, 11 L. Ed. 2d 45. Generally, facts found by the trial judge are conclusive on the appellate courts when supported by competent evidence. Nevertheless, the conclusions of law drawn from the facts found are not binding on the appellate court. State v. Bishop, supra; State v. Walker, 266 N.C. 269, 145 S.E.2d 833; State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E.2d 363. Thus, whether the conduct and language of these investigating officers amounted to such threats or promises as to render a subsequent confession involuntary is a question of law reviewable on appeal. State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E.2d 492; State v. Biggs, 224 N.C. 23, 29 S.E.2d 121.
As a result of the decision in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, a number of procedural safeguards must be employed prior to an in-custody interrogation, and unless the warnings and waivers demanded by Miranda are demonstrated by the prosecution, no evidence obtained by the interrogation is admissible.
In instant case there was plenary evidence that the procedural safeguards required by the Miranda decision were recited by the officers and that defendant signed a waiver stating that he understood his constitutional rights, including his right to counsel. Even so, the ultimate test of the admissibility of a confession still remains whether the statement made by the accused was in fact voluntarily and understandingly made. State v. Bishop, supra; State v. Gray, supra; State v. Conyers, 267 N.C. 618, 148 S.E.2d 569; State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390, 64 S.E.2d 572. The fact that the technical procedural requirements of Miranda are demonstrated by the prosecution does not, however, standing alone, control the question of whether a confession was voluntarily and understandingly made. The answer to this question must be found from a consideration of the entire record. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S. Ct. 1761, 16 L. Ed. 2d 895; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S. Ct. 274, 4 L. Ed. 2d 242; State v. McCloud, 276 N.C. 518, 173 S.E.2d 753.
The facts of instant case direct our inquiry to the question of whether the circumstances reveal that the challenged confession was obtained by the influence of hope or fear implanted in defendant's mind by the acts and statements of the police officers during defendant's custodial interrogation. This Court has considered this question many times against varied factual backgrounds, and we think it profitable briefly to review some of these decisions.
In the landmark case of State v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259, the prisoner, after he was arrested, was told that, since he was in custody, any confession he might make could not be given in evidence against him at trial; therefore, he might as well come out with the whole truth. Another person present stated that if the prisoner made confessions, it would be to his credit thereafter. On these urgings, made in the presence of the prosecutor, the defendant made the confession which was offered into evidence at his trial. Several days later, of his own motion, the defendant requested the jailer to send for the prosecutor and stated that he wished to disclose to him the names of certain persons who had been concerned and involved in the commission of the offense charged. During the course of this second conference with the prosecutor, the *101 defendant made certain statements which tended to establish his own complicity in the crime.
Rejecting the confessions as involuntary, Chief Justice Taylor, writing for the Court, in part, stated:
Justice Henderson, concurring, set forth the rule as to voluntariness of confessions, a rule which still retains its vitality almost a century and a half after its writing:
In State v. Whitfield, 70 N.C. 356, the defendant was charged with larceny of a hog. The owner, a white man in company with two other white men, went into the field where the defendant, a Negro man in his employment, was working. He told the defendant that the hog had been stolen and said to him, "I believe you are guilty. If you are, you had better say so. If you are not, you had better say that." Thereupon, defendant confessed. Holding the confession to be involuntary, the Court employed the following language:
Another case factually similar to the case now before us is State v. Stevenson, 212 N.C. 648, 194 S.E. 81. There the evidence tended to show that the defendant had started to make a statement while in jail and was told by an officer that he need not lie because the officer already had more than enough evidence for his conviction. The defendant thereupon confessed. This Court awarded a new trial on the ground that the confession was not a free and voluntary confession but was instead a product of unlawful inducement on the part of the law enforcement officer.
In State v. Drake, 113 N.C. 625, 18 S.E. 166, the facts showed that while the defendant was being carried from the place of his arrest to a Justice of the Peace, a law enforcement officer said to him, "If you are guilty, I would advise you to make an honest confession. It might be easier for you. It is plain against you." At that time the defendant denied his guilt, but after the *102 Justice of the Peace had committed him to jail, he confessed. The Court again held the confession to be involuntary and, in part, stated:
In State v. Livingston, 202 N.C. 809, 164 S.E. 337, the defendants were arrested, and after measuring their shoes and tracks at the scene of the crime, the officers told defendants that "it would be lighter on them [to confess]" and that "it looks like you had about as well tell it." The defendants forthwith confessed to the crime charged. There the Court, relying upon State v. Roberts, supra, held that the confessions were involuntary and inadmissible in evidence. Accord: State v. Fox, supra (Officer told defendant that it would be better for him in court if he told the truth and that he might be charged with a lesser offense of accessory to the homicide charge rather than its principal.); State v. Fuqua, 269 N.C. 223, 152 S.E.2d 68 (A police officer told the incarcerated defendants that he [the officer] would be able to testify that they cooperated if they aided the State in its case.); State v. Woodruff, 259 N.C. 333, 130 S.E.2d 641 (Officer obtained favors and concessions on the part of State officials to induce defendant to aid in solving the homicide and promised that if the evidence obtained involved defendant, he would try to help defendant.); State v. Davis, 125 N.C. 612, 34 S.E. 198 (Officer told defendant that he had "worked up the case, and he had as well tell all about it.").
The rule set forth in Roberts has been consistently followed by this Court. The Court has, however, made it clear that custodial admonitions to an accused by police officers to tell the truth, standing alone, do not render a confession inadmissible. State v. Thomas, 241 N.C. 337, 85 S.E.2d 300; State v. Thompson, 227 N.C. 19, 40 S.E.2d 620; State v. Thompson, 224 N.C. 661, 32 S.E.2d 24. Furthermore, this Court has made it equally clear that any improper inducement generating hope must promise relief from the criminal charge to which the confession relates, not to any merely collateral advantage. State v. Hardee, 83 N.C. 619; see State v. Pressley, 266 N.C. 663, 147 S.E.2d 33.
In instant case the interrogation of defendant by three police officers took place in a police-dominated atmosphere. Against this background the officers repeatedly told defendant that they knew that he had committed the crime and that his story had too many holes in it; that he was "lying" and that they did not want to "fool around." Under these circumstances one can infer that the language used by the officers tended to provoke fright. This language was then tempered by statements that the officers considered defendant the type of person "that such a thing would prey heavily upon" and that he would be "relieved to get it off his chest." This somewhat flattering language was capped by the statement that "it would simply be harder on him if he didn't go ahead and cooperate." Certainly the latter statement would imply a suggestion of hope that things would be better for defendant if he would cooperate, i.e., confess.
We are satisfied that both the oral and written confessions obtained from defendant *103 were made under the influence of fear or hope, or both, growing out of the language and acts of those who held him in custody. We hold that both the oral and the written confessions obtained in the Sheriff's Department on 9 October 1973 were involuntary and that it was prejudicial error to admit them into evidence.
The facts of this case disclose the commission of brutal and revolting crimes. Yet, we must apply well-recognized rules of law impartially to easy and hard cases alike lest we make bad law which will erode constitutional safeguards jealously guarded by this Court for nearly a century and a half.
We would not be understood to hold that our ruling on the admissibility of the oral and written confessions obtained by police officers on 9 October 1973 is intended necessarily to vitiate the apparently volunteered statements made to Deputy Sheriff Ray Starling on 10 October 1973. At the next trial the admissibility of these statements should be determined by the trial judge after a voir dire hearing. See State v. Godwin, 216 N.C. 49, 3 S.E.2d 347; State v. Lowry, 170 N.C. 730, 87 S.E. 62; 2 D. Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 185 (Brandis Rev.).
We do not deem it necessary to consider at length defendant's assignment of error concerning the argument of the district attorney. Suffice it to say that arguments which refer to the failure of defendant to testify are disapproved. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106, rehearing denied, 381 U.S. 957, 85 S. Ct. 1797, 14 L. Ed. 2d 730; State v. Roberts, 243 N.C. 619, 91 S.E.2d 589; see Annotation, 24 A.L.R.3d 1093.
Neither do we see prejudicial error in the admission of defendant's negative answer to S. B. I. Agent Windham's question, "What's the matter Frank, are you sick about what you did?" We simply note in passing that this question and answer could have added little to the State's case.
For the reasons stated, there must be a
New trial.