Opinion ID: 307861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Because they had agreed to be lenient with my wife ..

Text: The trial court subsequently held that the production of those items of evidence was free and voluntary. The evidence demonstrates that following the statement concerning the search warrant Culp refused to cooperate until he was promised some kind of assistance for his wife; that when Inspector Anderson arrived Culp immediately asked him what kind of a deal could be worked out for his wife; that Culp was allowed to confer privately with his wife on several occasions to discuss leniency; that Culp himself went to the closet and removed the satchel and attache case and handed them to the police; and that Culp testified he cooperated to obtain leniency for his wife. We find that the record discloses that the independent basis for Culp's consent was to have the police and court go easy on his wife. This record adequately supports the trial court's finding that the consent to search was voluntarily given. The defendant's second and third contentions are that his subsequent consent to the search and his confession were induced by the illegal searches of his car, his wife's purse and the black bag. 2 The trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt 3 that defendant's cooperation was voluntary and not induced or otherwise coerced. There exists ample evidence to support this finding. The confession made by Culp at the police station occurred after repeated Miranda warnings were given by the officers. Culp was advised of his constitutional rights when he was arrested, when Inspector Anderson arrived (at which time he signed a waiver form) and when he was at the police station before making any statements. At trial during the confession hearing the defendant acknowledged that his rights had been explained to him and that he fully understood them. The record is also replete with testimony by the defendant, his wife and the officers that Culp's only reason for cooperating was to obtain leniency for his wife. Mrs. Culp stated that her husband said: Well, I don't want to cooperate. You understand that? You know me; you know what kind of a person I am, and I have never cooperated before. But if you feel that you can go easy on my wife and offer some type of leniency, well then maybe we have got something to talk about. And at the hearing on his confession the defendant declared, [Had there been no deal for leniency] [t]here would have been no confession or consent to search. Judge Urbom ruled both at the suppression hearing and at the confession hearing that the officers had made no improper or coercive promises or threats concerning leniency toward Culp's wife, and the record contains overwhelming evidence to support this holding. The three searches that the defendant claims were illegal did not result in any evidence which was used at trial, and any coercion that might have been produced was apparently ineffective to induce the defendant to cooperate according to his own admission. Therefore, we need not pass upon the legality of these searches. The defendant's last contention relates to the court's instruction on reasonable doubt. Defendant insists the court committed plain error in the instruction. It is urged that the instruction negates an acquittal if the jury believes that possibly the defendant is innocent and that it requires a substantial doubt rather than a reasonable doubt. The form of instruction used by the district court has been previously approved by this court and other courts of appeal. See e. g., Friedman v. United States, 381 F.2d 155, 160-161 (8 Cir. 1967); United States v. Aiken, 373 F.2d 294, 299 (2 Cir. 1967). See generally Holland v. United States, 209 F.2d 516, 522-523 (10 Cir. 1954), aff'd, 348 U.S. 121, 138-140, 75 S.Ct. 127, 99 L.Ed. 150. We find no error. Judgment affirmed. 1 Many cases imply that where law enforcement officers indicate only that they will attempt to obtain or are getting a warrant that such a statement cannot serve to vitiate an otherwise consensual search. See e. g., United States v. Savage, 459 F.2d 60, 61 (5 Cir. 1972); United States v. Curiale, 414 F.2d 744, 747 (2 Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 959, 90 S.Ct. 433, 24 L.Ed.2d 424; United States v. Boukater, 409 F.2d 537, 538-539 (5 Cir. 1969); United States v. Manarite, 314 F.Supp. 607, 612-613 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd, 448 F.2d 583 (2 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 281, 30 L.Ed.2d 264; United States v. Fitzpatrick, 289 F.Supp. 767 (N.D.Utah 1968); People v. Ward, 27 Cal.App.3d 218, 103 Cal.Rptr. 671, 675-676 (1972); State v. Douglas, 488 P.2d 1366, 1373-1375 (Or.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 974, 92 S.Ct. 2420, 32 L.Ed.2d 674 (1972); Barlow v. State, 280 A.2d 703 (Del.1971); Thurman v. State, 455 S.W.2d 177 (Tenn.Cr.App.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 938, 91 S.Ct. 930, 28 L.Ed.2d 218 But see Poe v. Oklahoma City, 483 P.2d 1190, 1191 (Okl.Cr.App.1971); State v. Lewis, 80 N.M. 274, 454 P.2d 360, 363 (1969). Cf. Losieau v. Sigler, 421 F.2d 825, 827 (8 Cir. 1970). 2 Culp was being treated with methadone for narcotic addiction, and he claimed that he was experiencing withdrawal during this period and the officers would not allow him to take any methadone until everything was cleared up on the case. Inspector Anderson testified that they could not allow him to take anything until they could be positive what it was, and as soon as Culp was processed at the station, he was permitted to go to the health unit and be treated. Anderson and Detective Chamberlain testified that they noticed no signs of withdrawal. In fact, after defendant made his recorded confession and after he had obtained some methadone, he gave another statement substantially the same as his first 3 Cf. Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972); United States v. Watson, 469 F.2d 362 (5 Cir. 1972)