Title: State v. Magby

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

113 Ariz. 345 (1976) 554 P.2d 1272 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Bobby Reed MAGBY, Appellant. No. 3112. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 20, 1976. *347 Bruce E. Babbitt, Phoenix, Atty. Gen., by Heather A. Sigworth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for appellee. John M. Neis, Pima County Public Defender, by Anne-Marie Brady, Asst. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant. CAMERON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal by defendant, Bobby Reed Magby, from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to the crime of first degree murder, A.R.S. §§ 13-451 and 452, with a sentence of life in the Arizona State Prison without the possibility of parole prior to the serving of 25 calendar years in the state prison. Defendant raises the following questions on appeal: The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. On the morning of 22 December 1973, Magby and his friend, Wayne Siegfred, began drinking a mixture of vodka and orange juice from a wine jug. Later that morning, after replenishing their vodka and orange juice, Magby and Siegfred went to Carl's Body Shop where they joined several other men, including the victim Danny Clay. The men spent their time drinking, talking and shooting a sling shot. Magby and Clay got into a fight about 12 noon. Magby punched the victim twice before Clay retaliated and knocked Magby to the ground. Clay and another man, Larson, picked Magby up and helped him into his van. While assisting Magby, Clay apologized for having hit him. Magby later emerged from the van carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Magby tapped Clay on the shoulder to get his attention, yelled an obscenity and shot the victim in the face from a distance of less than six feet. The entire right side of Clay's head was blown off. An eyewitness, Ralph Vogler, testified as follows: *348 I stepped back trying to bet behind Bobby and we was right next to the wrecker and then lit off with the shotgun. And Magby's friend "Loser" testified: And: Magby then fled on foot. About one hour later he was apprehended by the police when he was discovered passed out in a truck. An information was filed on 3 January 1974 charging Magby with the first degree murder of Daniel Joseph Clay. On 2 December 1974, the jury found Magby guilty of first degree murder. From this verdict and the judgment of the court defendant appeals. TESTIMONY OF PROBATION OFFICER Defendant argues that it was error to permit his probation officer, John Burch, to testify concerning statements made by defendant while in custody. We agree. Two days after defendant was arrested, Burch visited him at the jail and without giving him the Miranda warnings, asked him about the shooting of Clay. At the trial, Burch testified as follows: We have held that statements to a probation officer about crimes committed during the term of probation are admissible in a hearing to revoke probation, State v. Fimbres, 108 Ariz. 430, 501 P.2d 14 (1972), and this would be true regardless of whether the probationer was read his Miranda rights prior to such admissions. We have also held that a confession of a crime to a probation officer without Miranda warnings after conviction of that crime may be used by the judge in sentencing. State v. Jones, 110 Ariz. 546, 521 P.2d 978 (1974). We do not believe, however, that in-custody statements about a later crime made to a probation officer without Miranda warnings should be admissible in the State's case when the probationer is later tried for that crime. We agree with the Kansas Supreme Court: Although one jurisdiction has held that a defendant, by accepting probation, in effect, makes a continuous waiver of his Miranda rights, Nettles v. State, 248 So. 2d 259 (Fla.App. 1971), we believe that Miranda must be followed before statements to a probation officer concerning a new crime may be admitted at the trial of that new crime. The Fifth Circuit has stated: The admission of Burch's testimony was error. WERE CERTAIN STATEMENTS BY DEFENDANT INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE HE WAS INTOXICATED? During the time defendant was being "booked" at the jail, he was read his Miranda rights. When asked if he would answer some questions he responded by asking if he could make a telephone call which he was allowed to do on the phone in the station house. He called his girl friend and made several admissions which were overheard by the police officers who testified to the conversation at the trial. Defendant is reported to have said to his girl friend as to why he was in jail: Later, when defendant gave blood for a blood alcohol test, he was asked if he would answer some questions and refused but later made other admissions stating: Defendant asserts that since he was intoxicated at the time he made these statements to his girl friend and the police, these admissions were inadmissible at his trial. We have stated: In the instant case, though it is obvious that defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the testimony of the officers does not indicate that the statements were so influenced by the intoxication so as to be involuntary or untrustworthy. The testimony of the officer indicates that the defendant's speech was not slurred, that he stood while using the telephone, that he appeared to understand what was being said to him and what he voluntarily said to the officers and his girl friend. The nurse who took the blood sample testified defendant was cooperative and aware of his surroundings. We find no error. STATEMENTS TO THE PSYCHIATRIST Defendant contends it was reversible error to permit Dr. John Clymer, a psychiatrist, to testify to statements made by defendant concerning the shooting. Dr. Clymer was one of the psychiatrists appointed to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial. At the hearing on defendant's competency to stand trial, the defendant objected to any testimony concerning the facts of the shooting. Defendant's objections were sustained. At the trial itself, at which time defendant's sanity at the time of the shooting was an issue, the State called Dr. Clymer and after other testimony asked him the following: The disclosure of this information violated Rule 11.7(b)(1), Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 1973, 17 A.R.S. The rule which deals with mental examinations to determine competency, provides: And A.R.S. § 13-1621 provides: And we have stated: Both Rule 11.7(b)(1) and A.R.S. § 13-1621 provide that evidence obtained concerning the crime may not be presented without the consent of the defendant. Although the defendant made no objection to the introduction of the evidence, we believe that something more is required. The record must affirmatively show that the defendant did, in fact, consent to the introduction of this evidence. We believe it is error to introduce this evidence at the trial without a showing of defendant's consent. To allow this information to be admitted without defendant's consent would have a chilling effect on the honest and free flow of information between the doctor and patient while the patient is being examined as to his competency to stand trial. This court has stated: We hold it was error to admit this testimony by Dr. Clymer. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ADMITTING DR. HOOGERBEETS' TESTIMONY? Dr. Jacob D. Hoogerbeets also examined defendant for competency and testified at the competency hearing. At the trial, Dr. Hoogerbeets was called as a rebuttal witness by the State to testify as to defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. The defendant filed a written motion to preclude Dr. Hoogerbeets from testifying at the trial concerning the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense which motion was denied. The defendant argues that a psychiatrist appointed to examine a defendant solely for the purpose of determining the defendant's competence to stand trial may not thereafter testify as to the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. We disagree. While the psychiatrist may not testify without consent as to defendant's admissions concerning the crime itself, he may give his opinion, if he has any, and if there is a proper foundation, as to defendant's sanity at the time of the offense. We agree with the reasoning of our Court of Appeals (Rule 250 is the predecessor to Rule 11 of the 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure): We find no error. FIRST DEGREE MURDER INSTRUCTION The defendant contends that "the trial court's instruction to the jury on first degree murder unduly stressed the rapidity of the thought process and failed to emphasize the requirement of premeditation and deliberation." We disagree. We have stated: The court in the instant case instructed the jury as follows: Premeditation need not be prolonged. In the instant case, defendant, after being helped into the van, had time to remove the gun from its place in the van, get out, walk around the van to victim's back and wait for him to turn around. We think there was sufficient evidence of premeditation from which the judge could instruct and the jury could find that the defendant was guilty of a wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. State v. McIntyre, 106 Ariz. 439, 477 P.2d 529 (1970). We believe the instruction in this case on deliberation and premeditation correctly states the law. State v. Richmond, 112 Ariz. 228, 540 P.2d 700 (1975); State v. Maloney, 101 Ariz. 111, 416 P.2d 544 (1966). DOES THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT A VERDICT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER? Defendant contends that the evidence does not support a conviction for first degree murder. The defendant contends: (a) There was no showing of express malice aforethought to support a finding of first degree murder. (b) Defendant was so intoxicated that he was incapable of premeditation. (c) There was adequate provocation to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. (a) Malice Absent justification, State v. McIntyre, supra, the jury may find malice from the use of a gun or other deadly weapon. State v. Duke, 110 Ariz. 320, 518 P.2d 570 (1974); State v. Sellers, 106 Ariz. 315, 475 P.2d 722 (1970). Defendant contends that there are two types of malice aforethought, express and general, and that the inference of malice from the use of a gun will support general malice only and that the most defendant could be convicted of is second degree murder as there must be specific malice to support first degree murder. We disagree. Our statute does not admit to such a result: *353 Malice aforethought is an element of murder and distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Both express and implied malice will support a conviction of murder. In the instant case, there was a sufficient showing of malice aforethought to support a conviction of murder. (b) Defendant's Intoxication Magby next contends that he was intoxicated to such an extent that his first degree murder conviction should be reduced to manslaughter, or in the alternative to second degree murder, because defendant's intoxication negated premeditation and deliberation. We disagree. The jury was given an instruction on both grades of murder as well as voluntary manslaughter. Evidence was introduced at trial which showed that Magby had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol at the time of the offense and had a blood alcohol content of .26 taken 3 to 4 hours after the shooting. The jury was properly instructed that voluntary intoxication may produce a state of mind which incapacitates an accused and prevents him from forming the malicious intent or malice aforethought which is an essential element of murder. State v. Coward, 108 Ariz. 270, 496 P.2d 131 (1972). Whether the intoxication negated the malice and reduced the crime from murder to manslaughter is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. State v. Duke, supra. (c) Provocation Finally, defendant alleges that the evidence supports his contention that the fight between him and Clay was adequate provocation to reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter. We do not agree. The jury was properly instructed on the issue of provocation and whether there was adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter is a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. Roser v. State of Arizona, 45 Ariz. 264, 42 P.2d 613 (1935). We find no error. DISPOSITION We have noted that it was error to admit the testimony of the defendant's probation officer and Dr. Clymer concerning defendant's statements about the shooting. We do not believe, however, that these errors mandate reversal. The facts of the shooting were testified to at the trial by two eyewitnesses and sustained by other admissible testimony. The statements by the probation officer and Dr. Clymer, while erroneous, were merely cumulative evidence of the accused's guilt which was overwhelmingly established by other evidence and did not contribute to the verdict, and we believe were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S. Ct. 1726, 23 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1969). Judgment affirmed. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur. HAYS, Justice (specially concurring). I concur in the majority opinion except that I cannot agree that testimony from a psychiatrist concerning defendant's statements as to the events surrounding the charge creates fundamental error. Although this error is not specifically denominated as such in the majority opinion, the requirement that there must be an affirmative showing on the record of consent by the defendant himself spells out fundamental error without mentioning it. The list of requisite litanies continues to grow as the search for truth becomes an obstacle race rather than a dash, and juries sit impatiently while court and counsel in chambers make affirmative showings for the record. It is no abuse of due process in my mind to require the defendant to object before such testimony is barred. If defense counsel elicits the proscribed testimony from a psychiatrist, where is the affirmative showing of defendant's consent? Does this fundamental error mandate reversal?