Opinion ID: 1699018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissions and Confession.

Text: Mrs. Holt contends that her admissions and confession were illegally obtained and should not have been received in evidence against her. It is unquestionably true that without her own declarations Mrs. Holt could not have been found guilty of murder. Her challenges to their receipt follow two principal lines of argument: (1) The statements were not voluntary by reason of her having been detained by the police without food for six hours on the day of her arrest, during which time she was constantly interrogated, and (2) the officers failed to apprise her of her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. We have carefully examined the record, and we are satisfied that Mrs. Holt's declarations were voluntarily made. The jury was properly instructed to disregard her statements if it believed they were not voluntary. It is noted that her statement given to the district attorney, taken in the presence of her counsel, confirms a large number of the admissions which were relied upon by the state at the trial. There is no hard-and-fast rule in this state that an accused must be informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. This court in State v. Bronston (1959), 7 Wis. (2d) 627, 641, 97 N. W. (2d) 504, said: The defendant was not advised by the police officials at the time of his interrogation of his right under sec. 8, art. I, Wis. Const., to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate him. Confessions are not necessarily inadmissible for failure to advise of the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Link v. State (1935), 217 Wis. 582, 586, 259 N. W. 428, 261 N. W. 416; and State v. Whatley (1933), 210 Wis. 157, 168, 245 N. W. 93. In the instant case we are convinced that the defendant, because of his intelligence and education, and the newspaper and magazine publicity that has been given in the past few years to the right of citizens against self-incrimination, was well aware of such right at the time of his interrogation. Mrs. Holt testified that she had completed two years of high school, that she read the newspapers and was pretty well conversant with the events of the time. She is not an illiterate or unintelligent person in whose behalf the court might impose a stricter standard upon law-enforcement officers relative to the privilege against self-incrimination. In addition, there was credible testimony that she was aware of her rights under the Fifth amendment. While en route to the police headquarters she was heard to state that she did not intend to answer any further questions based upon the Fifth amendment. This pronouncement reflects an awareness of her rights which obviates any doubts that might otherwise exist that she needed a caution about her constitutional right not to incriminate herself. In the Bronston Case, supra , Mr. Justice CURRIE, writing for the court, stated at page 641: We commend the practice of law-enforcement officers informing arrested persons accused of crime of such constitutional right before questioning them. We reiterate that suggestion but opine that failure to do so will not render the product of the interrogation inadmissible unless it appears that the defendant by reason of his education, intelligence, or other circumstances has been imposed upon.