Opinion ID: 1993014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the admission of Brown's signed statement error?

Text: The statement was not a confession. It was in fact exculpatory. Except for the fact that Brown admits possession of the murder weapon and his presence at the scene of the crime, the statement adds nothing to the proof of the State's case. We note further that on the stand Brown corroborated in detail the contents of his written statement, with the exception of one or two minor discrepancies. The circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement are briefly as follows: When Brown was brought to Delaware from Maryland, he was questioned orally by a State Trooper. Following this oral questioning, he was then warned that he did not have to make any statement and that anything he might say could be used against him at his subsequent trial. Brown then voluntarily made the statement subsequently admitted into evidence. The manner of making the written statement was that the questioning officer asked a question which was then typed. Brown then gave his answer. His own words were then typed following the typed question. At the end of the interrogation Brown read over the typed questions and answers, and signed the statement. When the State offered the written statement in evidence, Brown's counsel examined the officer who took the statement on voir dire. This took place in the presence of the jury. [1] At the conclusion of this examination, counsel made no objection to the admission of the written statement in evidence. During the course of the voir dire examination counsel's questions were directed to the voluntariness of Brown's statement and as to whether or not he had asked for counsel prior to making the statement. Brown testified that he requested counsel but the police officer contradicted him. Brown now seeks to have the admission of the statement ruled to be prejudicial error. No contention is made that any physical or mental coercion was used by the police to obtain Brown's statement, but it is argued that Brown was not warned of his constitutional rights prior to his oral examination which preceded the taking of the written statement, and that, accordingly, the admission into evidence of the written statement constitutes error because he was not effectively warned of his constitutional right to remain silent. The difficulty with the argument is that concededly he was so warned prior to making the written statement, and no oral statement made by him prior to the warning was offered or admitted into evidence. There was, therefore, an effective waiver by Brown of his right to remain silent. Halko v. State, Del., 209 A.2d 895. The main argument under this point, however, is based upon Escobedo v. United States, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed.2d 977, and United States ex rel. Russo v. State of New Jersey (3rd Cir.) 351 F.2d 429, [2] decided upon the authority of the Escobedo case. The contention is that these two cases require that when a criminal investigation reaches the accusatory as opposed to the investigatory stage, it becomes the duty of the State to affirmatively inform an accused of his right to counsel, and that the failure to so inform an accused makes a confession obtained as a result of ensuing interrogation inadmissible in evidence at his trial. Admittedly, in Brown's case he was not so informed. Brown also contends that under the Escobedo and Russo cases, the failure to furnish counsel (according to his version of the facts which we accept for present purposes) made his written statement inadmissible. We heard argument in this appeal prior to acceptance by the Supreme Court of the United States of five petitions for certiorari [3] which collectively involved the scope of the decision in the Escobedo case. After we learned of these five cases pending before the Supreme Court, we withheld decision in this appeal to await clarification by the Supreme Court of the unclear situation which followed as the aftermath of the Escobedo case. On June 13, 1966 an opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court in Nos. 584, 759, 760 and 761, 86 S.Ct. 1602. On June 20, 1966 an opinion was handed down in No. 762, 86 S.Ct. 1772. In Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882, the Supreme Court held that the rule of the Escobedo case affected only cases in which the trial began after June 22, 1964, the date of the Escobedo decision, and that the rule of Miranda v. State of Arizona, which further elaborates on the Escobedo rule, applies only to cases in which the trial began after June 13, 1966, the date of the Miranda decision. Since the trial of Brown commenced on April 20, 1964 and went over to the following day, by reason of the Johnson case, the Escobedo case and the Russo case, decided on its authority, have no application in the appeal before us. In the Johnson case it is made clear that with respect to criminal trials commencing prior to June 22, 1964 the question to be determined with respect to the admission into evidence of an incriminating statement obtained as a result of police interrogation is whether or not the statement was made voluntarily. We test the admissibility of this statement in accordance with the rules prevailing in Delaware prior to June 22, 1964. As of that time, Delaware had no requirement that counsel be furnished prior to arraignment. In the appeal before us a voir dire examination was conducted in order to determine whether or not Brown voluntarily made his written statement. At the conclusion of the voir dire examination, counsel made no objection to its admission into evidence. His actual statement was: Your Honor, this statement being exculpatory in nature, I feel that the State has laid sufficient foundation to offer it, so I'm not going to make any objection to it. We think that Brown's statement satisfies the requirement of voluntariness and was properly admitted into evidence. Brown was advised by the police of his right to remain silent and that if he made a statement it could be used against him. This being so, the police advised him of all his constitutional rights which the requirements of law prior to June 22, 1964 demanded. It therefore does not matter that he was not told that he could have a lawyer or whether he in fact asked for one. His statement was not coerced in any way. The conviction below is affirmed.