Title: MATTER OF R P S

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 80-75 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN THE MATTER OF R.P.S. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Robert 5. Waller argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Olsen, Christensen and Gannett, Billings, Montana Damon L. Gannett argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: May 29, 1980 Decided : &Jr\l 2 4 1 9 8 9 1 Filed: jUN 2 4 19QD M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The S t a t e i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n on November 15, 1979, by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n i n Youth Court, Yellowstone County, a l l e g i n g R.P.S. was a delinquent by having committed t h e crimes of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and sexual i n t e r c o u r s e without consent. On November 26, 1979, counsel f o r R.P.S. f i l e d a motion t o suppress a confession made by R.P.S. and a l l physical evidence r e l a t e d t o t h e confession. A hearing on t h e motion w a s held t h e next day. R.P.S. presented evidence i n support of t h e motion including a psychological evalu- a t i o n . The S t a t e was given time t o p r e s e n t r e b u t t a l testi- mony and w a s granted permission t o have an independent examination of R.P.S. The S t a t e presented its r e b u t t a l testimony on December 17, 1979. The testimony included a p s y c h i a t r i c evaluation of R.P.S. The Youth Court, t h e Honorable Diane G. Barz presiding, subsequently entered a n order granting t h e motion t o sup- p r e s s t h e confession and a l l physical evidence derived as a r e s u l t of t h e confession. The c o u r t found t h e evidence should be suppressed because R.P.S. was incapable of making a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t 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 confession and because law enforce- ment personnel had f a i l e d t o comply with Montana's Youth Court A c t by obtaining a waiver of r i g h t s from R.P.S.'s p a r e n t s p r i o r t o t h e confession. The S t a t e brings t h i s appeal from t h e order of t h e Youth Court. On November 1 4 , 1979, R.P.S. went t o t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e a t t h e r e q u e s t of a s h e r i f f ' s of- f i c e r . R.P.S. was 18 years o l d on t h a t d a t e , having turned 18 on October 19, 1979. The a l l e g e d o f f e n s e s contained i n the petition filed in this case occurred on October 9, 1979, before R.P.S. was 18. R.P.S. arrived at the sheriff's office at about 7:OO p.m. Between 7:00 p.m. and approximately 11:30 p.m. that evening, R.P.S. was interviewed several times by sheriff's officers. He also took a polygraph examination. R.P.S. signed several waiver of rights forms and a consent form for the polygraph test during the evening. R.P.S. confessed to the crimes charged during the interview sessions. The following day he accompanied officers to the scene of the crimes and assisted them in locating several pieces of physical evidence connected with the crimes. At the direction of Yellowstone County attorney Harold Hanser, the sheriff's officers interviewing R.P.S. treated him as an adult. They did not, therefore, gain a waiver of rights form from his parents as required by the Montana Youth Court Act. See section 41-5-303, MCA. In fact, R.P.S.'s mother called the sheriff's office several times during the interview sessions. Each time officers told her she could not talk to R.P.S. Two expert witnesses testified at the suppression hearing concerning psychological evaluations they had per- formed of R . P . S . Dr. Ned Tranel testified that R.P.S. was schizophrenic. Dr. Tranel stated that because of his mental condition, there was a high probability that R.P.S. could not understand the abstract terms contained in the Miranda warnings or understand the consequences of making statements to the officers after being advised of his rights. Dr. Tranel was of the opinion that R.P.S. was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his ~0n~tit~tioIlal rights at the time he allegedly did so. D r . Bryce Hughett a l s o t e s t i f i e d as t o t h e mental condition of R.P.S. D r . Hughett found no evidence of thought d i s o r d e r present. He s t a t e d t h a t R.P.S. was capable of understanding t h e Miranda warnings and of making a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t waiver of h i s r i g h t s a t t h e time t h e o f f i c e r s interviewed him. The S t a t e raises t h e following i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Did the Youth Court err i n finding t h a t R.P.S. was incapable of v o l u n t a r i l y waiving h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ? 2. Did theYouthCourt err i n suppressing t h e confes- s i o n and a l l evidence obtained a s a r e s u l t of t h e confession because l a w enforcement personnel d i d n o t treat R.P.S. a s a youth and o b t a i n a waiver of r i g h t s from h i s parents? Addressing t h e f i r s t i s s u e , we note t h a t t h e r u l e s governing t h e review of a lower c o u r t ' s determination of t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of a confession a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. The i s s u e of voluntariness i s l a r g e l y a f a c t u a l determination f o r the t r i a l court. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment w i l l n o t be Cisturbed on appeal unless it is c l e a r l y a g a i n s t t h e weight of t h e evidence. S t a t e v. Blakney (1979), - Mont. , 605 P.2d 1093, 1096, 36 St.Rep. 2193, 2196; S t a t e v. Grimestad (1979) , - Mont. - , 598 P.2d 198, 202, 36 St.Rep. 1245, 1251. A s w e s t a t e d i n Grimestad: ". . . t h e standard t o be applied by t h e t r i a l judge on a suppression question i s 'preponderance of t h e evidence', b u t when t h e same question comes t o us on appeal t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses and t h e weight t o be given t h e i r testi- mony i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s determination and our review i s l i m i t e d t o determining whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence support- i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court's findings." 598 P.2d a t 203, 36 St.Rep. a t 1251. Under t h i s standard, w e must examine t h e record f o r s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s decision. The evidence t h a t supports t h e decision i s found mainly i n t h e testimony of D r . Tranel. D r . Tranel t e s t i f i e d t h a t R.P.S. suffered from a severe emotional disturbance technically diagnosed a s schizophrenic r e a c t i o n , acute undifferentiated type. D r . Tranel s t a t e d one consequence of R.P.S.'s emotional disturbance w a s a severely impaired a b i l i t y t o form l o g i c a l conclusions, understand cause-effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s and concentrate. D r . Tranel s a i d t h i s r e s u l t e d i n R.P.S.'s normal functioning being s i m i l a r t o t h a t of a person i n a dream. A second f e a t u r e of R.P.S.'s emotional disturbance, according t o D r . Tranel, w a s a disconnection between h i s emotion and the idea associated with it. A s an example of t h i s f e a t u r e of R.P.S.'s disorder, D r . Tranel s a i d R.P.S. may n o t have t h e unpleasant f e e l i n g normally associated with experiencing an unpleasant event. Beyond t h e schizophrenic condition, D r . Tranel t e s t i f i e d t h a t R.P.S. had a low l e v e l of ego strength. The doctor s a i d t h i s meant t h a t R.P.S. would "come a p a r t q u i t e e a s i l y " under s t r e s s . Based on t h i s diagnosis, D r . Tranel s t a t e d he d i d n o t think R.P.S. could have understood the Miranda warnings given t o him, e s p e c i a l l y a t the end of over four hours of interrogation. There i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence on t h e record. D r . Hughett t e s t i f i e d t h a t R.P.S. showed no s i g n s of schizo- phrenia when he interviewed him. D r . Hughett a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s of one of the tests administered by D r . Tranel indicated R.P.S. was consciously o r unconsciously attempting t o make h i s mental condition appear worse than it w a s . I n resolving t h i s c o n f l i c t i n t h e testimony, t h e t r i a l c o u r t assessed t h e testimony of D r . Hughett as follows: " ~ r . Hughett, through h i s testimony, f a i l e d t o convince t h e Court t h a t the youth i n question was n o t suffering from any mental d e f e c t , which would have impaired h i s a b i l i t y t o make an in- t e l l i g e n t , voluntary waiver of h i s r i g h t s . " A s pointed o u t above, the determination of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses i s f o r t h e t r i a l court. Thus, t h e f sllowing s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s here. Two experts t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e mental condition of R.P.S. Their testi- mony conflicted. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e testimony of t h e expert who found R.P.S. capable of v o l u n t a r i l y waiving h i s r i g h t s unconvincing and based i t s decision on the testimony of D r . Tranel set o u t above. W e have reviewed D r . Tranel's testimony. It i.s very thorough and d e f i n i t e l y supports t h e conclusion t h a t R.P.S. was incapable of v o l u n t a r i l y waiving h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . Further, according t o t h e t r i a l court, D r . Tranel's testimony is more c r e d i b l e than D r . Hughett's testimony. D r . Tranel's testimony, therefore, represents s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence on the record t o support t h e decision of t h e t r i a l court. A s such, w e affirm t h e order of the t r i a l c o u r t suppressing R.P.S.'s confession and a l l physical evidence obtained as a r e s u l t of the con- fession because R.P.S. d i d n o t make a voluntary waiver of h i s r i g h t s . Having determined t h e evidence i n question must be suppressed because R.P.S. d i d not v o l u n t a r i l y waive h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , it i s unnecessary t o consider t h e second i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e . A£ firmed. W e concur: J u s t i c e s