Opinion ID: 2333091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The confession of Harry Wise.

Text: Harry Wise was taken into custody by the Union Township Police at 3:30 P.M. on Thursday, February 18, at his home in Roselle, New Jersey. Shortly before his arrest, he had called the Union Township Police and asked whether they wanted to question him, and upon being told they did, he advised them they could pick him up at his home. Immediately after his arrival at the Union Township Police Station, he was questioned about his connection with the shooting of Sergeant Bond. He testified he was handcuffed and made to stand against a wall in an upstairs room at the station house, and while in that position, Detective Ebert shoved the handcuffs up his arms in a painful manner and then proceeded to kick him in the groin, punch him in the stomach and slap him in the face. He was thrown on the floor, picked up and placed in a chair, whereupon Detective Ebert commenced cursing him. Chief Lombardi and Sergeant Kitchell entered the room and told Ebert to loosen the handcuffs. Lombardi asked him if he would like to make a statement and he replied affirmatively. A pen and paper were furnished to him and he commenced writing out a confession in his own hand. At the trial, when asked why he gave the statement, Harry said: Well, when I got there  I decided anyway, before I got there, and that's the reason why I came home. I was going to turn myself in anyway.    I was going to turn myself in anyway, and so Mr. Lombardi told me that I might go make up a statement because, `We already know about it,' and I started to make up this statement about five minutes after. There is little doubt from the record before us that at the time of his arrest Harry Wise was a narcotics addict. He testified he had had a bag and a half that morning and had been taking it regularly for a period of three years. While he was writing out the statement, he said he felt pain in his stomach and became dizzy  which apparently are symptoms normally associated with an addict's withdrawal from narcotics. He claimed he told the police officer he was a dope addict and that he was suffering from withdrawal. According to Harry, he was unable to continue writing out the statement and remembered nothing that occurred thereafter, although he did remember being given an injection by a doctor sometime later. He said that when he came to, he found himself riding with police officers in a car headed toward Springfield, Massachusetts. Harry called as an expert witness in his behalf a psychiatrist who had had considerable experience in the field of narcotics addiction. The expert testified that during the withdrawal stage an addict will not be able to think clearly, will lack discernment and will be unable to make wise decisions. Harry also called as his witness Dr. Kempe, who had examined him on three occasions on February 18 at the police station, the first time at about 6:30 P.M., again at 8:30 and the last time near midnight. He testified that on the occasion of the first examination, he found Harry to be nervous and sweating, although he was fully capable of answering his questions. The doctor testified, based upon his observation of Harry at 6:30 P.M., that Harry's mental faculties were not impaired and he was well oriented. A police officer told him Harry was a heroin addict and the doctor gave him an injection of metrazole and morphine, a stimulant. Harry's condition otherwise was satisfactory. The second time he examined Harry at 8:30 P.M. that evening he found him sweating and under nervous tension and again gave him an injection of morphine. When asked whether Harry was in full possession of his mental faculties at this time, the doctor replied affirmatively. At 11:45 P.M. the same evening, he was called to the police station and upon examining Harry, found him to be in very nervous tension and sweating. His eyes and his nose were running and his pupils were dilated. On this occasion he again gave him an injection of metrazole and morphine and advised the officer in charge that Harry should be removed to a hospital. Harry entered the Elizabeth General Hospital at 12:45 A.M. on February 19, and the hospital records and the testimony of the attending physician and the nurses disclose that he complained of abdominal pains and had tremors of hands and lips. He was given injections of phenobarbital and at one point during the night appeared to be in agony. However, he later fell asleep. The following day, Friday, he had breakfast and rested quietly. He was discharged from the hospital at 1:20 P.M. in the custody of the police. The State's version of the events leading up to Harry's confession differs sharply from the defendant's recital. Sergeant Kitchell testified Harry arrived at the Union Township Police Station at about 3:30 and he appeared normal at the time. They began questioning him and while doing so Kitchell received a telephone call from Detective Reiss, who was then in Springfield, Massachusetts, advising him that evidence had been discovered there implicating Harry and Albert Wise and Stokes. Kitchell said that following the telephone conversation he confronted Harry with this information and Harry announced he would give him a statement. He requested paper and pencil to write out the statement and proceeded to do so. He wrote for about a half hour and when, according to Kitchell, they decided he was not furnishing sufficient detail in his written statement, they brought in a stenographer to take down a statement in question and answer form. This statement commenced at about 5:07 P.M.  a little more than an hour and a half after Harry arrived at the police station  and was concluded at about 6 P.M. Afterward, Harry appeared to be sick and Dr. Kempe was sent for. By that time Harry was in his cell and the police stenographer was putting the statement in typewritten form. Harry remained in his cell for the rest of the evening of February 18 until he was taken to the hospital. Apparently, he was not asked to sign the typewritten confession at any time that night. The following day, after Harry's release from the hospital, he was requested by the police to reenact the events which had occurred on the morning of February 12. He directed the police officers along the route which had been taken by the defendants to the Tuscan Dairy, and at the dairy pointed to locations where various events had occurred on that morning. He was then returned to police headquarters, where he was presented with his confession, which he read and signed, after making several corrections in the transcription. After signing the confession, he identified the guns which were used during the hold-up, which had been recovered by the police, and the keys which Albert had taken from the safe. At 4 P.M. that afternoon he was returned to the hospital. The basic objection to Harry Wise's confession was that at the time he made it he was suffering from severe symptoms of withdrawal from narcotics addiction. Counsel for Harry Wise, citing Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941), and Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 719, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1954), ruling the defendant must have mental freedom `to confess to or deny a suspected participation in a crime,' plus State v. Cooper, 10 N.J. 532, 552 (1952): The state of mind which renders such a statement involuntary and hence inadmissible is that induced by mistreatment, threats, promises, physical or mental abuse which deprives an otherwise rational mind of the exercise of its free will and powers of decision and discernment, contends in his brief: In view of the fact that at least some pressure  and the defense contends that it was an overwhelming amount  was exerted, this court must determine whether the defendant possessed the `free will and powers of decision and discernment,' the capacity for `expression of free choice,' `the mental freedom to confess or deny a suspected participation in a crime' which would render it voluntary. Much reliance is placed upon the testimony of the defense's medical expert, a specialist in psychiatry and neurology who, answering a hypothetical question, said the prisoner's condition would not indicate the confession was purely voluntary although it was automatic in compliance. However, Dr. Kempe, while not an expert in the field of narcotics addiction, actually observed Harry on three occasions and in his opinion there was nothing wrong with the prisoner's mental condition, his mind was clear and well oriented, and he was in full possession of his mental faculties. Lay witnesses testified to the same effect. Dr. Baruch, on his observations, concluded the prisoner was capable of giving a voluntary statement, while Schlossberg, a veteran of 25 years' experience with narcotics traffic, found no evidence that the defendant was a narcotics addict and likewise found him in full possession of his mental faculties. Counsel for the prisoner in his brief says: The question as to whether a person under the influence of narcotics is legally capable of making a voluntary confession is a novel one in the New Jersey courts, while the State in its brief says, in reference to the same question: Not only is there a dearth of precedent in this State but there is very little precedent in the entire United States. This problem has been encountered and disposed of in People v. Kent, 41 Misc. 191, 83 N.Y.S. 948, 949 ( Sup. Ct. 1903). The defendant there, under charge of homicide, gave a statement to the coroner and others at a hospital while under the influence of narcotics. In denying the application for a certificate of reasonable doubt, the court said: The fact that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or liquor, which affected his recollection, did not make his declarations inadmissible or incompetent. It simply affected his credibility, and the weight to be given to his statements by the jury.    He may have been under the influence of drugs and liquor to such an extent as to have been unconscious of what his words meant, or he may only have been excited by the drugs and liquor, and yet possessed of his reason and judgment. These were questions of fact for the jury, and were properly submitted for their consideration. Closely analogous to the case sub judice is People v. Waack, 100 Cal. App. 2 d 253, 223 P. 2 d 486, 489 ( D. Ct. App. 1950). There the defendant confessed he was an addict and his victim, a prostitute in his employ, was a user. A police officer testified the defendant had stated he took a shot of heroin shortly before his arrest and admitted that at the time of his confession the defendant appeared to be under the influence of a narcotic. A second statement was taken when the defendant appeared to be suffering from the effects of withdrawal symptoms. In affirming the conviction, the court said:    The question is not whether the defendant was suffering from the effects of a narcotic when the statements were taken, but whether such statements were freely and voluntarily given by defendant at a time when he knew and understood what he was saying.    This was a question of fact for the trial court.    In People v. Duncan, 72 Cal. App. 2 d 247, 164 P. 2 d 313, 316 ( D. Ct. App. 1945), the defendant had taken an overdose of seconal in an attempt to commit suicide. He gave a murder confession the following day from his hospital bed after he came out of a coma. At the trial, however, he claimed he could remember nothing of having given a confession. In passing upon his contention that the confession was inadmissible, the court said: In essence all that is said in argument on the point goes to the weight of the evidence, and not to its admissibility. Although there appear to be few reported cases involving the admissibility of confessions given while the defendant was under the influence of narcotics, we think it is apparent the same principles apply to this class of cases as have long been applied to confessions made while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In the latter class of cases, both the state and federal courts are in unanimous agreement that the intoxication of the accused at the time he confesses affects only the weight of the confession as evidence against himself. So long as the accused is capable of making a narrative of past events or of stating his own participation in the crime, his statements are admissible against him. State v. Grear, 28 Minn. 426, 10 N.W. 472 ( Sup. Ct. 1881); White v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 625, 25 S.W. 784 (1894); Eiffe v. State, 226 Ind. 57, 77 N.E. 2 d 750 ( Ind. Sup. Ct. 1948); Bell v. United States, 60 App. D.C. 76, 47 F. 2 d 438, 74 A.L.R. 1098 ( D.C. Cir. 1931); Morton v. United States, 79 U.S. App. D.C. 329, 147 F. 2 d 28, 31 ( D.C. Cir. 1945), certiorari denied 324 U.S. 875, 65 S.Ct. 1015, 89 L.Ed. 1428 (1945); Bell v. United States, 60 App. D.C. 76, 47 F. 2 d 438, 74 A.L.R. 1102; 18 L.R.A., N.S., 789; Underhill, Criminal Evidence (2 d ed. 1910), § 136. The confession itself bears witness to the fact that at the time he made it Harry was in full command of his senses. The document is 21 pages long and in it Harry accurately related  as proved by the State's corroborating evidence and the confessions of his accomplices  every detail of the events which occurred on the morning of February 12 and his participation in them. Before signing the document, he made no less than 11 corrections in the transcription, a performance incompatible with a mind devoid of discernment or a will of its own. Even if we ignore all of the other evidence which undermines the validity of Harry's present position, there would still remain his own testimony at the trial that I decided anyway, before I got [to the police station]    I was going to turn myself in   , by which he plainly meant he had decided to confess. According to the prisoner's version of what transpired, that decision was made long prior to the time he went into the so-called withdrawal stage and under any view was a voluntary act. Accordingly, we fail to see any basis upon which the trial judge could have ruled otherwise than as he did in admitting the confession into evidence for consideration by the jury.