Court Opinion

ID: 9618861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:18:21.19591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:15.744580
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). I dissent only on the issue of the admission of Gruender’s confession in evidence without a determination by the trial court that the confession was voluntary. This is an important legal principle for a trial court to follow. It is an important principle for this court to clarify. During a hearing out of the presence of the jury, Gruender contended that the whole purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the confession was voluntary. The trial court disagreed. It merely found that the evidence was conflicting and held: “I think the matter of evaluating the confession is really for the jury.” In Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967), the identical problem arose. In reversing the conviction, the court said: Although the judge need not make formal findings of fact or write an opinion, his conclusion that the confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity. Flere there has been absolutely no ruling on that issue and it is therefore impossible to know whether the judge thought the confession voluntary or if the jury considered it as such in its determination of guilt. This rule is binding upon the states. On remand of the Sims case, the trial judge determined that Sims’ confession was voluntary and denied a new trial. On a subsequent appeal, the case was again reversed. 389 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 523, 19 L. Ed.2d 634 (1967). The Sims decision was based on Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964). For another case directly in point, see Javor v. United States, 403 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1968). In my opinion, some late New Mexico decisions are not clear on this point. Not one of them states that the conclusion of the trial court “that the confession is voluntary must appear from the record with unmistakable clarity.” See State v. Burk, 82 N.M. 466, 483 P.2d 940 (Ct.App.1971), application for certiorari docketed and is pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. State v. Soliz, 79 N.M. 263, 442 P.2d 575 (1968), and cases cited; State v. Fagan, 78 N.M. 618, 435 P.2d 771 (Ct.App.1967); State v. Word, 80 N.M. 377, 456 P.2d 210 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Beachum, 78 N.M. 390, 432 P.2d 101 (1967), cert. den. 392 U.S. 911, 88 S.Ct. 2068, 20 L.Ed.2d 1369 (1968). As early as 1924 in State v. Martinez, 30 N.M. 178, 230 P. 379 (1924), the Supreme Court held: A very proper practice in such cases is to inquire into the circumstances under which the confession was alleged to have been made, in the absence of the jury, and for the court to determine from such evidence whether the confession was voluntary. In Pece v. Cox, 74 N.M. 591, 396 P.2d 422 (1964), the court said: Equally important is the fact that the evidence here presented shows clearly that the trial judge ruled that the confession was voluntary before he submitted it to the jury. In State v. Ortega, 77 N.M. 7, 419 P.2d 219 (1966), Justice Moise said: In connection with each of the three items of proof, i. e., the confessions, . . the state was required to lay a foundation before they were submitted to the jury. Based upon the presentation made to the court, a ruling was made that the evidence was admissible, . . . [Emphasis added.] In State v. Gutierrez, 79 N.M. 732, 449 P.2d 334 (Ct.App.1968), the court said: After the trial court determined that the confession was voluntary the issue was then submitted to the jury. The time has come to instruct trial courts to say: “I rule that the confession is voluntary and I will allow it to be submitted to the jury under proper instruction” or “I rule that the confession is involuntary and is not admissible in evidence.” Thereafter, this continuous legal problem will end. We are deluged with criminal cases. We must try to be clear and explicit in every principle of criminal law so that we shall not repeat it in various wordy phrases to reach a just result. Based upon the foregoing, I dissent on the issue of the admission of Gruender’s confession as heretofore stated.