Document: 420 U.S. 714 95 S.Ct. 1215 43 L.Ed.2d 570 State of OREGON, Petitioner,v.William Robert HASS. No. 73—1452. Argued Jan. 21, 1975. Decided March 19, Syllabus When a suspect in police custody has been given and accepts the full warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694, later states that he would like to telephone lawyer, but is told cannot do so until reaching station, then provides inculpatory information, such information admissible evidence at suspect's trial solely for impeachment purposes after taken stand testified contrary knowing had ruled inadmissible prosecution's case chief. Harris New York, 401 222, 91 643, 28 1. Pp. 720-724. 267 Or. 489, 517 P.2d 671, reversed. Thomas H. Denney, Salem, Or., petitioner. Sam A. McKeen, Klamath Falls, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents variation fact situation encountered Court (1971): suspect, who state officer, warnings1 them, lawyer this be done officer reach contrarily or it under Fifth Fourteenth Amendments? 2 * The facts are not dispute. In August 1972, bicycles were from two residential garages Moyina Heights area Ore. Respondent Hass, due course, was indicted burglary first degree, violation Ore.Rev.Stat. § 164.225, with respect bicycle garage attached one residences, house occupied family named Lehman. He charged other burglary. 3 On day thefts, Officer Osterholme Oregon Police traced an automobile license number place where Hass lived. met there placed him arrest. App. 15. At Hass' camera that, giving 467—473, 1624—1627, 694 (1966), asked about theft Lehman residence. admitted stated sure, first, which talking about. 10. further said returned them left it. Id., 12. departed patrol car site. 12—13. way opined 'was lot trouble,' id., 13, 26, his attorney. 13. replied could 'as soon as we got office.' Ibid. Thereafter, respondent pointed out brush found. 4 court statements made wanted see attorney, identification bicycle's location, admissible. prosecution elicited Osterholme, its chief before jury, witness because needed money, back, recovered. 31—32. 5 Later took stand. friends, Walker Lee, 'just riding around' Volkswagen truck, 42; drove slowly down street; Lee suddenly reappeared, tossed into 'ducked down' on floor vehicle 44; did know 'stole first,' 45; own intention get rid bike; they overtaken jeep son; son 'that's guy,' 46; bike Lehmans; came upon 'sitting him,' threw 48; he, respondent, went 'out Washburn Way I far could,'2 ibid.; stolen bicycles, 49; no idea what going do, 61; any bikes being 'where those residences located,' 63. 6 recalled rebuttal. houses taken. 65. cross-examination, prior doing, 'that knew from, however, didn't exact street address.' 66. also along time 'had some difficulty' identifying 'until actually them' 'he recognized it.' 78. 7 court, request defense, advised jury portion Osterholme's testimony describing statement 'may used you proof Defendant's guilt . may consider only bears (credibility) Defendant when stand.' 79. 8 again 'wrong.' 81. 9 verdict guilty. received sentence years' probation $250 fine. Appeals, feeling itself bound earlier decision Brewton, 247 241, 422 581, cert. denied, 387 943, 87 2074, 18 1328 (1967), pre-Harris case, reversed ground improperly impeach testimony. 13 Or.App. 368, 374, 510 852, 855 (1973). petition review, Supreme Oregon, 4-to-3 vote, affirmed. 671 reasoned proper warnings, here, have nothing lose, perhaps gain something, purposes, continuing their interrogation warnings; thus, deterrence. contrast, said, yet given, element deterrence, 'will take chance losing incriminating adequate warnings.' 492, P.2d, 673. three dissenters perceived difference between situations. 493—495, 674. Because result conflict reached North Carolina Bryant, 280 N.C. 551, 554—556, 187 S.E.2d 111, 113—114, (1972),3 bore our (1971), granted certiorari. 419 823, 38, 42 46 (1974). We reverse. II 10 raises preliminary arguments. mention passing: suggests 'when law more restrictive against than federal law,' power 'to compel conform law.' Brief apparently, proffered reference expressions free matter impose greater restrictions activity holds necessary constitutional standards. See, e.g., Cooper California, 386 58, 62, 788, 791, 17 730 (1967); Sibron 392 40, 60—61, 88 1889, 1901—1902, 20 917 (1968). See Kaluna, 55 Haw. 361, 368—369, 520 51, 58—59 But, specifically refrains imposing them.4 Smayda United States, 352 F.2d 251, 253 (CA9 1965), 382 981, 555, 15 471 (1966); Aftanase Economy Baler Co., 343 187, 193 (CA8 1965). 11 Although provision compulsory self-incrimination criminal prosecution, Ore.Const., Art. 1, 12, present decided courts Amendment grounds. rest Constitution law; neither cited. found attempt distinguish supra, reveals basis. 12 2. State's highest favor defendant reviewable here. This, assume, standing argument advanced theory aggrieved judgment. Surely, holding reasons, utilize otherwise relevant makes party review. should self-evident, cases California Green, 399 149, 90 1930, 26 489 (1970), manifest validity. 3. 581 Appeals felt bound, merits comment. There held statements, murder defendant, preceded defendant's even though voluntarily made. 14 review 'for purpose deciding whether wished overrule Brewton,' It 'not make determination' because, majority view, Brewton distinguishable. As set forth below, unable cases. Furthermore, pre-Harris. III takes us real issue, namely, bearing York case. Harris, two-count indictment twice selling heroin undercover officer. introduced sales. defense. denied sale described second baking powder utilized part scheme defraud purchaser. specified immediately following arrest; partially contradicted Harris' response, remember questions answers recited prosecutor. instructed attributed passing credibility guilt. guilty count indictment. sought use chief, conceded right appointed counsel. Chief Justice, speaking Court, observed, U.S., 224, S.Ct., 645: 'It does follow accused barred all provided course trustworthiness satisfies legal standards.' Relying Walder 347 74 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), Fourth 'difference principle' Harris; 'impeachment process here undoubtedly valuable aid assessing petitioner's credibility'; 'benefits lost'; '(a)ssuming exclusionary rule deterrent effect proscribed conduct, sufficient deterrence flows question unavailable chief,' 225, 645, 'shield perverted perjury risk confrontation inconsistent utterances.' 226, 646. held, accordingly, appropriately impeached conflicting statements. valid distinction application principles opposing 19 always 'the 645. Again, impeaching material provide credibility; again, benefits lost,' 645; making deterrent-effect assumption, If sufficed supports demands Here, too, shield testify inconsistently, perjuriously, utterances. are, all, engaged search truth long surrounded safeguards Constitution. suggestion involuntary coerced. properly sensed, 'trouble'; pressure person inquiry investigating 21 possible factual lies proper, whereas defective. rule, necessity give warnings. That these prove incomplete, therefore defective, mean served aware defect; defect remains. inadmissibility same: pervert falsify embarrassment mouth. 22 One might concede continues asks little lose something possibly uncovering material. speculative possibility, defective known event, balance struck disposed change now. If, officer's conduct amounts abuse, involving coercion duress, care arises measured traditional standards evaluating voluntariness trustworthiness. 23 hold appellate error rebuttal grounds impeachment. judgment 24 ordered. 25 Reversed. DOUGLAS consideration 27 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. petitioner informed counsel thus subsequent (1966). nonetheless permitted today extends rights questioning continued Miranda. resulted purposes. 29 adhere my dissent 'completely disposes direct opposed cross-examination. 'An can legitimately drawn." 231, 648. well view judiciary must 'avoid slightest appearance sanctioning illegal government conduct.' States Calandra, 414 338, 360, 94 613, 626, 38 561 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting). '(I)t monstrous abet law-breaking abiding '(n)othing destroy quickly failure observe laws, worse, disregard charter existence." 232, 649 diss enting). 30 Court's goes beyond undermining Even incentive warning remain silent still Under today's holding, once almost Miranda's requirement '(i)f individual wants cease attorney present.' Miranda, 474, 1628. followed will surely since advise silent.1 disobeyed, obtain if temerity defense.2 Thus, decision, doubtless vigorously pressed arrives. am unwilling join fundamental erosion Sixth dissent. affirm or, least, remand proceedings reasons MARSHALL's dissenting opinion. 31 MARSHALL, BRENNAN 32 While agree brother correct, think appropriate add word increasingly common practice reviewing statecourt decisions upholding claims Michigan Mosley, 51 Mich.App. 105, 214 N.W.2d 564 (1974), granted, 1119, 801, 819 (1975); Payne, 412 47, 93 1966, 36 736 (1973); Wisconsin Yoder, 406 205, 92 1526, (1972); Byers, 402 424, 1535, (1971); (1970). 33 too often rushed correct without sufficiently considering drawn rendering purely advisory Plainly, expressly law, upset Jankovich Indiana Toll Road Comm'n, 379 487, 85 493, 439 (1965); Minnesota National Tea 309 60 676, 84 920 (1940); Fox Film Corp. Muller, 296 207, 56 183, 80 158 (1935). sound policy behind articulated Jackson Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 65 459, 89 789 (1945): 34 'This foundation adhered principle judgments independent reason obvious rarely thought warrant statement. 35 partitioning judicial systems limigations jurisdiction. Our over extent incorrectly adjudge rights. And wrong judgments, revise opinions. render opinion, same rendered corrected views amount opinion.' 125—126, 463 (citations omitted). Where say certainty rested grounds, refused issue case; either dismiss writ improvidently clarify basis decision. Krivda, 409 33, 32, 45 Mental Hygiene Dept. Kirchner, 380 194, 871, 753 (1965). Of unclear relied answer appear 'of record' 'clear decisive,' 37 'it seems consistent Union rather intended. imposes unwelcome burden mitigated knowledge protect jurisdiction unwitting interference renunciation.' 128, 464. From perusal evident exacting contains prohibition self-incrimination, distinct possibility intended express law. flatly below certain. cite support judgment, considered initially viewed precedents light (1971). concluded required examination determined situation. court's regarded merely persuasive authority deemed squarely quite least 'asked intended.' 39 addition importance avoiding jurisdictional difficulties, much better permit freedom strike practices, ruling violates prohibitions. peculiarly within competence determine subject stringent rules minimum. 40 premised reluctant adherence require, based conclusion admitting encourage misconduct self-incrimination. precisely setting most likely apply clause lessen perceives intolerable abuse. Accordingly, state-court reversing conviction unless clear resolved applicable state-law adversely feels compelled reverse hand. 41 intend should, very deems appropriate. absolutely departing usual remanding claims, including applicability treated 57, 1972; 434, 1541; 168—170, 1940—1941; C. Wright, Federal Courts 488 (2d ed. 1970); cf. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. Decatur, 297 620, 623, 606, 607, 925 (1936). Surely suggest foreclosed respondent's sua sponte so, unprecedented assumption surprise me. admission crime 'theft receiving,' 164.095, is, receipt disposal property another, stolen. offense. ex rel. Wright LaVallee, 123, 125 (CA2 1972), 867, 167, Padgett Russell, 332 F.Supp. (ED Pa.1971); Johnson, 109 Ariz. 70, 505 241 Rooks State, 250 Ark. 561, 466 S.W.2d 478 People Nudd, Cal.3d 204, 115 Cal.Rptr. 372, 524 844 pending, 74—5472; Jorgenson People, 174 Colo. 144, 482 962 Williams 301 A.2d (Del.Sup.1973); Retherford, 270 So.2d 363 (Fla.Sup.1972), 953, 3020, 1007 Campbell 231 Ga. 69, 200 690 Moore, 54 Ill.2d 294 N.E.2d 297, 2787, 404 Davis 257 Ind. 46, 271 893 Sabatini Md.App. 431, 287 511 Commonwealth 364 Mass. 236, 303 Kish, Utah 2d 430, 1208 Riddell Rhay, 79 Wash.2d 248, 484 907, 974, 336, 291 Ameen Wis.2d 175, 186 206 Cf. Horner, 453 Pa. 435, 441, 552, 555 comfort pronouncement Florance, 169, 527 1202, seizure case: 'If choose continue interpretation. interpreting Article 9, unreasonable searches seizures constitution. Or interpret restrictively interpreted Court' (footnote quoted excerpt good last sentence, unsupported cited authority, inadvertent error; reject Watts Indiana, 338 49, 59, 69 1347, 1358, 1801 (1949) (Jackson, concurring result) ('any worth salt tell uncertain terms circumstances'). Comment, Yale L.J. 1198, 1220 (1971) ('(the police) realize arrives permitted'). 'unfettered' choice burdened illegally obtained denying complicity him.' 230, 648

Category: 0