Opinion ID: 2616859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Defendant's Statement to Casper Police

Text: Defendant asserts, citing Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 246, that voluntariness is to be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances, a rule which we tacitly recognized recently in Lonquest v. State, Wyo., 495 P.2d 575, where we observed at 582 that the voluntariness of a confession is necessarily a question which must be determined on the facts of each case as they arise. He correctly says that under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, the admissibility of a confession depends upon the defendant's being advised of his rights and intelligently waiving them, and impliedly concedes that here the warning indicated by Miranda as being proper was given and would be sufficient except that the two psychiatrists' testimony, the finding of incompetency to stand trial after the shooting, and the lay-witness testimony as to defendant's behavior prior to the killing seem to indicate a strong possibility that defendant was insane and incompetent at the time he confessed. In that connection he discusses Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242, at some length, as well as United States v. Silva, 2 Cir., 418 F.2d 328. Defendant's argument on this aspect of the case does not bear scrutiny: First, because in the present case the jury determined that the defendant at the time of the offense was sane  thus, if it be contended that the same rule should apply, defendant must be taken as having been sane at the time of the confession and it was accordingly voluntary. Further, the situation here and in Blackburn, supra, were not at all similar, there the evidence being very strong that the defendant was insane at the time of the confession and additionally that there had been an extensive eight or nine-hour inquisition. Equally incomparable is the Silva case, supra, where there was substantial evidence of earlier insanity of defendant, including attempts to commit suicide, previous treatment at hospitals for psychiatric disorders, the use by him of heroin, and extended and repeated attempts of the officers to secure a confession from him. Counsel in the brief says that the confession cannot be considered voluntary because when police officers arrived at the hospital one asked Jarrett and his mother what had happened or who had shot the person, defendant answered, Well, I guess I did, it's sort of difficult, and that defendant thereafter felt compelled to make a further statement, having already implicated himself. That such circumstances would have any bearing on the voluntariness of the confession is unsupported by either authority or cogent argument. We do not overlook the averments here that the time of the statement was soon after the sister's death; defendant had had no prior experience with police officers; and no relative, friend, or counsel was present. These circumstances do not ipso facto render the confession involuntary or inadmissible, and we find nothing in the record tending to show that they had any bearing on what was said by defendant to the officer. On the contrary are numerous circumstances reflected by the evidence that would reasonably show the statement to be both voluntary and to have been given by one who was sane and fully aware of the wrongfulness of the shooting. His statement, among other things, showed that he had planned more than one method of killing his sister and was concerned in making himself look lily white. He evaluated and compared different methods of effectuating the killing, which he had contemplated for some time, and had worn rubber gloves in order to conceal the fingerprints and to leave the impression that the sister had committed suicide. His speaking of having chickened out on one occasion indicates as does the entire account of what happened that the statement was made without coercion, voluntarily, by an intelligent person who well knew the difference between right and wrong, albeit he had some warped ideas. [6] A careful examination of all the evidence adduced at the trial discloses no circumstance sufficient to show either that the confession was involuntary or given by a person who was at the time insane to the point of not knowing what he was doing.