Title: State v. Hartley
Citation: 326 N.W.2d 226
Docket Number: 13575
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: November 17, 1982

326 N.W.2d 226 (1982) STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Rodney HARTLEY, Defendant and Appellant. No. 13575. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs March 25, 1982. Decided November 17, 1982. *227 Mark Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief. Lee A. Tappe, Platte, for defendant and appellant. FOSHEIM, Chief Justice (on reassignment). Appellant Rodney Hartley appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of third-degree burglary. We remand. Several items of clothing and food were taken from a store in Wagner, South Dakota, on March 13, 1981. Deputy Sheriff Ed Zylstra and Police Chief Francis Mach took *228 appellant into custody for questioning regarding the burglary at approximately 8:00 a.m. that morning. Deputy Zylstra testified that he informed appellant of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Appellant was then transported to the police station in silence. Upon arriving at the police station, appellant was placed in an interrogation room and was again advised of his Miranda rights. During this interrogation appellant stated, "I don't know nothing about anything." While Deputy Zylstra testified that appellant did not request an attorney during this interrogation, appellant claims he requested an attorney three times. After the questioning was completed, appellant was placed in a cell. This interrogation session was videotaped. Later that day, appellant was again taken to the interrogation room where he was informed of his Miranda rights, this time by Sheriff Ruben Huber. Appellant acknowledged that he understood his rights and Sheriff Huber and Officer Thomas Hartley, appellant's brother, began questioning appellant. Officer Hartley testified that initially appellant "didn't want to tell me nothing .... And he, you know, kept telling me, you know, he didn't want to talk about it." Sheriff Huber agreed that initially appellant was unwilling to talk. The sheriff then left the room. However, Officer Hartley continued questioning his brother, with the result that appellant confessed to the burglary. This second interrogation session was not videotaped. At some point after March 13th, appellant's counsel arranged to view the videotape of the first session. However, when he arrived at the Law Enforcement Center he was told that the videotape had been erased because it contained nothing that could aid the State. Appellant moved to suppress his confession on the ground that all questioning should have stopped after he requested the assistance of counsel during his first interrogation. The issues on appeal point up the problem we encounter when the trial court fails to enter explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law following a hearing on a motion to suppress. State v. Stumes, 90 S.D. 382, 241 N.W.2d 587 (1976); See State v. Lufkins, 309 N.W.2d 331 (S.D.1981) (dissenting opinion). While this court much prefers the entry of written formal and specific findings and conclusions, verbal findings and conclusions made on the record are acceptable. State v. Janis, 321 N.W.2d 527 (S.D.1982); State v. Lewis, 90 S.D. 615, 244 N.W.2d 307 (1976). However, whether findings and conclusions are formally entered or orally made on the record, they must be such that there is no room for speculation and conjecture concerning what the trial court found or concluded. See Stumes, supra. Here the trial court made its determination of voluntariness on the record. The problem is that the trial court did not specifically find whether defendant requested counsel at his first interrogation session. It is not our function to make findings or conclusions for the trial court or to surmise what was intended; rather, it is our province to determine if the findings are supported by evidence and if the conclusions are warranted by findings. The reason for such delineation of responsibility is here demonstrated where the trial court's comments are susceptible of more than one interpretation. The state of the record requires that this case be remanded with directions for the trial court to enter specific findings on the issues of voluntariness and waiver raised by defendant's motion.[1] However, since the destruction of the videotape necessarily intrudes upon that fact-finding process, we will discuss that element. Appellant claims that destruction of the videotape denied him due process of law under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and State v. Parker, 263 N.W.2d 679 (S.D.1978). *229 While stating that the videotape had no direct bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence at trial, appellant urges that such destruction was nevertheless prejudicial because of its impact on the issue of whether his confession was admissible under the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination. A defendant is denied due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus a fair trial, when evidence material to his guilt or punishment has been suppressed. The nondisclosure of evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses also violates the due process clause. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972); Brady v. Maryland, supra; Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791 (1935). Napue, 360 U.S. at 269, 79 S. Ct. at 1677, states: "The jury's estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence, and it is upon such subtle factors as the possible interest of the witness in testifying falsely that a defendant's life or liberty may depend." And the United States Supreme Court has decided that the good faith or bad faith of the State in suppressing or destroying material evidence is not a consideration; instead, the inquiry focuses on the character of the evidence suppressed and the effect of such suppression on the defendant's right to a fair trial. Smith v. Phillips, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982); Agurs, supra; Giglio, supra; Brady, supra. Agurs noted that the Brady doctrine applies to "the discovery, after trial, of information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense." Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103, 96 S. Ct. at 2397. Here we are concerned with a pre-trial motion to suppress a confession where all the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the prosecution and the defense. The only question is which version is correct. It is the function of the trial judge at a suppression hearing to weigh the credibility of witnesses and decide the disputed facts. Undoubtedly the videotape would have simplified that task, but the tape's destruction did not render the trial court's function impossible. It was a factor the trial court could consider in deciding the facts. Without condoning the destruction of the videotape, we conclude that it does not come within the ambit of Brady. We move on to the issues of voluntariness and waiver. In this regard we first note that it appears the trial court may have erroneously assigned importance to the fact that appellant made no admission at the first interrogation session and that he did not persist in requesting the presence of counsel at the second interrogation session. The trial court stated: Transcript of Suppression Hearing, pp. 65-68 (emphasis added). From Miranda, supra, and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981), it is clear that whether an accused made an admission or kept repeating his request for counsel is immaterial, what is material is whether the right to counsel was asserted. As pointed out in Edwards, supra, and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973), the issues of voluntariness and waiver are discreet inquiries. Schneckloth said that a confession is voluntary if it was made freely and unconstrainedly and the accused's will was not overborne. 412 U.S. at 226, 93 S. Ct. at 2047 (citations and footnote omitted, emphasis added). Because appellant was subjected to the subtle compulsion of questioning in private by his brother, a police officer, after appellant said he did not want to talk, the trial court *231 must pay particular heed to Miranda's admonition that 384 U.S. at 473-74, 86 S. Ct. at 1627-28 (footnote omitted). Unlike the idea of voluntariness, waiver of constitutional rights implies knowledge. Schneckloth, supra. Whether appellant waived his Fifth Amendment rights must be answered by the trial court using the totality-of-the-circumstances approach. That is, considering appellant's age, experience, education, background and intelligence, did he understand the Miranda warnings and the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights and did he knowingly and intelligently forego his right to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197 (1979); North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 99 S. Ct. 1755, 60 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1979); Miranda, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938). An accused's request for counsel is "per se an invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights, requiring that all interrogation cease." Fare, 442 U.S. at 719, 99 S. Ct. at 2568; Edwards, supra. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 474, 86 S. Ct. at 1627, specifically stated: Miranda's waiver of counsel requirement was explained in Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S. Ct. at 1884, to mean that "additional safeguards are necessary when the accused asks for counsel." Edwards held that: If the trial court enters findings and conclusions that defendant's confession was admissible in evidence, the conviction is affirmed. If the court finds otherwise, a new trial is ordered. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964); Janis, supra; Stumes, supra. We remand. All the Justices concur. [1] The State must prove these issues beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980).