Court Opinion

ID: 9613752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:19:45.174874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.486253
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (dissenting). I dissent. I adhere to my position stated in State v. Lucero, 87 N.M. 242, 531 P.2d 1215 (Ct.App.1975) that § 40A-6-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1973) is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the facts illustrate why today’s Miranda warnings require additional safeguards to effectively protect an individual’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. I do not carry a bag of sympathy on my back for defendant as I write down the avenue of constitutional rights. These rights have been heralded in the courts for 200 years. On June 29, 1977, the police went to the motel in which Utter was staying to question him about the death of his child. Utter was read his Miranda rights and was told that he was a suspect in the case. He then voluntarily accompanied the officers to the police station where he signed an acknowledgment and a waiver of his rights before giving the police a written statement. At this time Utter was not charged with a crime nor held in custody. On July 8,1977, pursuant to a Grand Jury Indictment, Utter was arrested in Taos for a crime, the conviction of which he is now appealing. At the time the Albuquerque police arrested Utter he was in the Taos jail having been taken into custody for drinking in public, though the Taos police had neither given him his Miranda rights nor formally charged him with this violation. On the day of his arrest for child abuse, Utter was trembling and shaking as he was driven by the Albuquerque police from Taos to Albuquerque. He was not readvised of his Miranda rights prior to this journey. He testified that he told the police officers he wanted to speak with a lawyer before talking to the police; that he wanted to hire a local Albuquerque attorney who once represented his sister, and that the police officer asked him why he would spend ten thousand dollars to hire an attorney when he could get a public defender for free. In contrast, the police officer testified that defendant made no specific statement requesting an attorney; that a reference was made to the law firm only in the context of their representation of the defendant for a land sale in New Jersey; and that the officer did not try to dissuade defendant from representation by the attorney. At least twice during the course of the drive the police told Utter that his statement on June 29 had not been the truth, that they had medical evidence to the contrary and that the defendant’s conscience would feel better if he were to talk to the police. In other words, Utter was subjected to custodial interrogation. During the ride from Taos to Albuquerque, Utter either made essentially the same incriminating statement that he was later to give on tape to the police or said that he would give such a statement when he got to Albuquerque. At Utter’s request, upon arriving in Albuquerque, the police notified his wife that he was in custody; the police did not contact the law firm or any other attorney for Utter. At the Albuquerque police station, Utter was advised of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of them. Utter then gave a statement which was tape recorded and stenographed. This statement was never signed because while it was being typed an attorney from the Public Defender’s office, having been contacted by Utter’s wife, arrived to counsel Utter. From these facts the trial judge found that Utter had not invoked his right to remain silent or his right to counsel. As required by Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) the defendant was not advised on July 8 that “prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.” [86 S.Ct. at 1630.] The State, alleging that defendant waived these rights, submitted two stateménts of waiver made by defendant on June 29 and July 8 as State’s Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. The trial court refused to suppress the oral statement taken on July 8, 1977, but the trial court did not find that Utter voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. In State v. Greene, 91 N.M. 207, 572 P.2d 935, 941 (1977), Justice Federici said: We hold that (1) once a person is arrested and has asserted his right to counsel he may, upon receiving new and adequate “Miranda warnings,” change his mind for reasons satisfactory to himself and voluntarily submit to questioning, and (2) once the right to counsel has been effectively invoked, the State bears a heavy burden in demonstrating that a subsequent waiver is knowing and voluntary. [Emphasis added.] On July 8, Utter did not receive “new and adequate warnings” prior to the statements made. Neither did the State bear the heavy burden if Utter had actually asserted his right to counsel. The trial court believed the police and not Utter. I have no quarrel with this conclusion, but a higher standard for the waiver of fundamental rights should be adopted. Before initiating a discussion which could lead to any form of interrogation, the police officer should not only remind the individual in custody of his Miranda rights, he should seek an explicit answer as to the individual’s waiver of those rights. For instance, the police might say, “Mr. Utter, you have the right to an attorney before you talk to me. Do you want an attorney here before talking to me?” If Utter responds with an unequivocal “No, I do not want an attorney” then the police may proceed to question him; if he says “Yes” prior to or during the questioning, the police must either desist from or terminate the interrogation. These requirements form the holding of Sullins v. U. S., 389 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1968). In that case defendants were given their Miranda rights twice by two different sheriffs immediately after their arrest. During the drive to the sheriff’s office defendants made incriminating oral statements which were of the “same general tenor” as the written statements which they subsequently signed two days after their arrests. Defendants had been advised of their Miranda rights at least five times during the course of two days and each had executed a signed waiver of rights before giving his or her written statement to the police. At the hearing on the motion to suppress the written statements, defendants contended that they had asked for counsel immediately upon their arrival at the sheriff’s office “and on several subsequent occasions.” The police denied that “any one of them had at any time asked to have counsel present at their interrogation.” The court found it crucial that [t]he officers did testify, however, that at no time had any one of the four expressly said that he or she did not want to consult a lawyer before making a statement. The testimony of the officers that none of the accused specifically declined consultation with a lawyer before answering questions is fatal to the admissibility of their inculpatory statements for the Court in Miranda v. United States, supra, pointed out . . . that not only does “a heavy burden” rest upon the Government to show a waiver of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to retained or appointed counsel but also that waiver is never to be presumed from failure to ask for counsel. ... * * * * * * The written statements given after execution of the notices and waivers of constitutional rights do not stand in any better position than the oral statements previously made. The written statements merely reiterate the preceding oral statements. They were made after the damage had been done. [Emphasis added.] [389 F.2d at 988.] Contra: Daro v. U. S., 380 F.2d 23 (10th Cir. 1967); Bond v. U. S., 397 F.2d 162 (10th Cir. 1968); U. S. v. Montos, 421 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1970); U. S. v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1967). In addition, today’s Miranda warnings do not inform the individual that if he chooses to remain silent, his silence will not operate as evidence against him. The absence of a warning of this kind leads many suspects to speak who would not do so otherwise. A person facing arrest might hope that arrest or prosecution could be avoided by talking with the police; that cooperation will lead the police and prosecutor to believe in the suspect’s innocence. The suspect should be given a clear understanding of the consequences of exercising his right to remain silent so that he can more intelligently choose whether or not to try to talk his way out of arrest. See Elsen & Rosett, Protections for the Suspect Under Miranda v. Arizona, 67 Colum.L.Rev. 645 (1967). It has been suggested that a knowing and intelligent waiver of one’s rights to counsel and against self-incrimination is practically impossible because any disclosure under our adversary system of criminal justice is potentially damaging. Interrogation of Criminal Defendants — Some Views on Miranda v. Arizona, 35 Fordham L.Rev. 169, 233 (1966). One philosophy is that interrogation should never be permitted without counsel present and no statements made in the absence of counsel should be admissible. I would not go to these lengths in implementing Miranda, but I do recommend a higher standard for the waiver of fundamental rights.