Title: State Ex Rel. Berger v. Superior Court
Citation: 105 Ariz. 553, 468 P.2d 580
Docket Number: 9891
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: April 29, 1970

105 Ariz. 553 (1970) 468 P.2d 580 The STATE of Arizona, ex rel. Moise BERGER, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, the Honorable Morris Rozar, Judge thereof, and Terryll Scott Merritt, Real Party In Interest, Respondent. No. 9891. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. April 29, 1970. Rehearing Denied June 2, 1970. Moise Berger, Maricopa County Atty., By H. Charles Eckerman, Phoenix, for petitioner. Michael Hurley, Phoenix, for respondent. HAYS, Justice. Terryll Scott Merritt, real party in interest and defendant below, was charged in the Tolleson Justice Court with the crimes of burglary and grand theft. Thereafter, on January 9, 1969, the Maricopa County Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant at the preliminary hearing and in all further proceedings. *554 The matter was set for trial on November 6, 1969, at which time a voluntariness hearing was held, outside of the presence of the jury, to determine whether certain alleged statements of the defendant were admissible at trial. After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Morris Rozar, Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court, ruled that the challenged statements were involuntarily made and were thus inadmissible. The State then petitioned this Court for a Writ of Certiorari, which we granted on December 23, 1969. Having reviewed the record of the voluntariness hearing below, we remand this cause to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. At the voluntariness hearing, sheriff's deputies Dave Arellanes, Jim Kepner and Tom Ennis testified as to certain statements which the defendant allegedly made to them after defendant had appeared before the justice of the peace, been incarcerated, and had counsel appointed for him. Pursuant to requests by the defendant sent from the jail indicating he wanted to talk about his case, Arellanes and Kepner engaged in three separate conversations with defendant on the days of January 12th, 19th and 20th, 1969. Immediately before each of these conversations, the sheriff's deputies read to defendant the standard Miranda warnings. These warnings were contained on a printed card, which read as follows: On each occasion defendant initialed or signed the printed card prior to making any statements. On each occasion defendant made oral statements to the deputies concerning the alleged crimes. Defendant's counsel was neither present at nor contacted prior to any of the conversations. The sheriff's deputies were aware that a deputy public defender had previously been appointed in defendant's behalf. In his response to the State's petition for Writ of Certiorari, defendant acknowledges that Judge Rozar's ruling was based on the Court of Appeals decision of State v. Herman, 3 Ariz. App. 323, 414 P.2d 172 (1966), a case with facts quite similar to the present case. Herman holds that where a defendant has retained counsel from the time of his arraignment, "the defendant may not be questioned outside the presence of counsel without counsel's permission." 3 Ariz. App. at 327, 414 P.2d at 176. The decision concludes that statements elicited from a defendant, without the presence or approval of defendant's counsel, are inadmissible as a matter of law. By our holding today we expressly overrule that portion of State v. Herman which is inconsistent herewith. Our Federal Courts have consistently held that voluntary confessions are not barred by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A confession is not made involuntary by the mere fact that it was made outside the presence of an attorney. In enumerating its standards for voluntary confessions in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court stated the following: Thus, Miranda recognizes that a suspect may waive his Fifth Amendment rights at any time, provided the waiver is voluntary, knowing and intelligent. In Reinke v. United States, 405 F.2d 228 (9th Cir.1968), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion which we reach today. In Reinke the defendant was convicted, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. While in jail, and after his attorney had been appointed, he made incriminating statements to an FBI agent. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the statements were voluntary and admissible, even though the agent knew that counsel had been appointed and failed to obtain counsel's permission to proceed with the interview, because the accused had affirmatively initiated the interview, the appropriate Miranda warnings had been given, and the accused fully understood his Miranda rights. From the testimony at the voluntariness hearing the court could well have found that the defendant had voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to the presence of his appointed counsel. We hold that there is no magic formula of words nor pre-ordained ritual which must be invoked in order to accomplish this waiver, as long as there is a satisfactory showing that the defendant did so willingly and with an understanding of what he was doing. The defendant at the hearing gave testimony from which the court could infer that his statements to the deputies were made under the pressure of his being placed in the "hole." The trial court's order leaves unclear whether or not its finding of involuntariness was based on the mandate of the Herman case, supra, or on the other facts presented at the hearing. It is for this reason we consider it appropriate for the trial court to re-examine this matter and make a specific finding as to whether the circumstances of taking the statements were so oppressive as to render such statements involuntary. This case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL, J., concur. McFARLAND, Justice (dissenting). This case comes before us on a writ of certiorari to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the holding of Judge Morris Rozar that statements made by the defendant were not voluntarily made, and for this reason are inadmissible. In passing upon this question in past cases, we have held this Court is not concerned with mere conflicts in the evidence but whether there is substantial evidence to support a verdict or finding of the trial court. State v. Owen, 101 Ariz. 156, 416 P.2d 589; State v. Turner, 101 Ariz. 85, 416 P.2d 409; State v. Rivera, 94 Ariz. 45, 381 P.2d 584. The defendant was arraigned in Tolleson Precinct Justice Court on the 9th day of January 1969, at which time the Public Defender was appointed to represent him in all future proceedings. Immediately prior to the trial, on November 6, 1969, a voluntariness hearing was held as to these alleged statements made by the defendant. At the hearing, Maricopa County Deputy Sheriffs Dave Arellanes, Jim Kepner, and Tom Ennis testified as to the statements allegedly made by the defendant. The defendant and Oral W. Tucker, Jr., a deputy public defender, testified in opposition to the alleged voluntary statements. The officers testified that they had three separate conversations with the defendant namely, on the 12th, 19th, and 20th *556 days of January 1969. They testified that during these conversations the defendant made certain incriminating statements. The question of the voluntariness of the statements turns upon whether the defendant waived his right to counsel. The officers testified that the defendant informed them that he was, in fact, represented by the public defender at the time. The officers testified that before each of the times of interrogations they read to defendant what are known as the "Miranda warnings" as follows: The cards with the warnings were introduced in evidence. The card of January 12th contains the signature of defendant, and those of the 19th and 20th show he had initialed the card, which indicates that he had had it read to him, or at least that he had seen it. After which the officers testified that the defendant made oral statements to the deputies concerning the alleged crimes. Defendant's counsel were not present prior to the conversation, or at any time during the conversations. The record does not show that defendant expressly waived his right to counsel at the time of the conversations. It merely shows that the deputies read the Miranda rights to him. Defendant's testimony at the hearing was as follows: The trial court based its ruling upon State v. Herman, 3 Ariz. App. 323, 414 P.2d 172, which case follows the holdings of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694. It will be noted that the defendant testified that he was represented by the Public Defender during all of this time. It will also be noted that he did not waive his right to have counsel present during interrogation. Also he admitted he had sent a request to see the officers, but testified that the reason he wanted to see them was that they had put him in the "hole," and that he wanted to find out why he could not see a doctor because of his hands. He further admitted in his testimony that he was warned of his rights, but said it was after he made his statement that is, after they "talked to me first, and that's just what happened." He further admitted that he had requested to see the officers again at a later occasion for the same reasons. In Miranda, the Court stated: Summing up the evidence before the court at the time, in the light most favorable to support the decision of the trial court, the defendant requested an attorney be appointed to represent him; that the Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent him; and that it was representing him at the time of the interrogations. Oral W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, testified that it was the policy of the Public Defender to send letters to the jail to the effect that that office is representing the defendant, and if an officer wants to talk to a defendant it should be cleared through the Public Defender; also that it is the policy of the Public Defender to be present during any conversation with an officer. Defendant testified that he sent for the officers with what they call "tank" orders for the purpose of finding out why he was in the "hole" that is, in a "tank where they keep prisoners separated from any one else." Also why he could not see a doctor. "That is why I wanted to see them," he said. He said the first question he asked them was "Why am I here in the hole?" Even if he did request to talk to the officers about the case there is nothing in the record that shows an affirmative waiver of his right to have his counsel present. Without this waiver, the testimony is not voluntary. In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246, the defendant, after being indicted with other persons for violating the federal narcotics law, retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bail. While on bail, defendant held a conversation in the absence of his counsel with one of his co-defendants while sitting in the latter's automobile, unaware that the other defendant cooperating with government agents had allowed the installation of a radio transmitter under the front seat of the automobile by means of which a federal agent listened to the conversation. The court rejected the statement of the defendant during the conversation, using the following language: The majority cite Reinke v. United States, 405 F.2d 228 (9th Cir.), as supporting its position. But, in the Reinke case there was a signed waiver of rights, which read as follows: It will be noted that the waiver was evidently patterned after the Miranda case. It followed the Miranda warnings. This signed waiver makes it clear that the Reinke case is not in point with the facts of the instant case. United States v. Dowells, 415 F.2d 801 (9th Cir.) followed the Reinke decision, but, like Reinke, involved clear evidence of an effective waiver in fact, a signed waiver made after the Miranda warnings were given. But, inherent in both Reinke and Dowells is the requirement, under Miranda, of proof of an express waiver, which is lacking here. The instant case is more analogous to Queen v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 335 F.2d 297. The facts and holding follow: "Reversed and remanded." As was previously stated in Miranda, supra, "* * * a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel." The trial court was of the opinion that the State failed to sustain this burden and there is substantial evidence to support this finding. The mere fact of incarceration is not enough, in and of itself, to make every statement involuntary. I agree with the majority that continuous incarceration in the "hole" requires a close inquiry into the voluntariness of statements given under such conditions. But I cannot agree with the statement by the majority that the trial court's order is not clear as to the grounds upon which it was based. The fact that the trial court based its ruling on State v. Herman, supra, makes it plain that it did not consider incarceration in the "hole" as the critical factor, but was placing its decision squarely on the circumvention of defendant's counsel. The Herman case dealt solely with denial of the right to counsel, and not with coercion by virtue of incarceration. Therefore, remanding for a voluntariness hearing will not cure the problem. Here there was an intentional interrogation of an "in custody" defendant with knowledge that he was represented by counsel; no attempt to contact said counsel; and no showing in the record of a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right to have counsel present. Such conduct violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Miranda rule. Equally distressing is that the sanctioning of such conduct may severely undercut the future ability of defense attorneys to fulfill their obligation to vigorously protect the rights of their clients. It is my opinion that any defense attorney in private practice representing a defendant would deeply resent the representatives of the State talking to his client without the attorney's knowledge or consent. The Public Defender *562 is entitled to the same consideration as privately-retained counsel. For these reasons I must dissent. LOCKWOOD, C.J., concurs in this dissent.