Court Opinion

ID: 9848388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:18:18.224177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.340147
License: Public Domain

UDALL, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
I am not able to agree with the opinion of the majority in the above-entitled matter, in so far as it relates to the question of the admissibility of the defendant’s confession.
The majority expresses the view that defendant’s request to the officers for some of the tablets, and their reply that “that matter would be discussed after we had taken care of the business at hand, going through the search and their asking questions of me,” was an intimation by the officers that he [defendant] would receive some of the pills after the search and interrogation had been completed. The majority also, argues that the admission by the two officers that defendant may have made a request to use some of the pills was a tacit suggestion by them that the defendant was. to receive the pills. This conclusion is not justified by the evidence.
The sole question in this case is not whether defendant asked for the pills, but whether he was led to believe that he would receive the pills provided he cooperated with the police. The testimony in this-regard shows that defendant did not rely on the so-called intimation of reward. His testimony is as follows:
Q “You believed, when you filled out the form and your conversation at the detective headquarters that you were going to receive the benefit of getting to. use the drugs ?
A “I believe that I could and certainly I will say that, and also I had say that no *239one said I would to me. There was an intimation that I would.
Q “By their actions?
A “Well, for one thing, the reference ‘We will talk about that after we take care of this business at hand.’ ” [emphasis supplied]
On cross-examination this question was clarified.
Q “I see. And you were saying then at the time you made out the prescription on one of the blanks that they found in your car, that at that time you made a prescription out so that you would get a shot.
A “In hopes of a shot, Mr. Waag.
Q “But you hadn’t been told that you would get one if you did or you wouldn’t get one if you didn’t?
A “No, sir.
Q “Now, this hope that you had, do you feel that the officer deliberately induced that hope or was it your own desire for a shot that created that hope in your own mind?
A “I would say moreso my own desire. I might be reading something, speaking truthfully, something into there that wasn’t there.” [Emphasis supplied]
The import of defendant’s own testimony is that any intimation of reward given him was conceived by his own desire for the pills. That this is true is shown by his candid admission when he said:
“I might be reading something, speaking truthfully, something into there that wasn’t there.”
The majority states that defendant’s testimony should have been accepted at face value. I agree; and the face value of his testimony was that he made out the prescription “in hopes of a shot.” He hadn’t been told he would get a shot if he did cooperate, “No Sir.” The hope that he had was induced not by the officers but by “I would say moreso my own desire.”
The opinion of the majority, while admitting that the defendant was not actually suffering withdrawal symptoms at the time of the questioning, proceeds to discuss the case as though it was an established fact that the defendant was a dope addict in one of the advanced stages of addiction. Furthermore, the majority places no reliance on, and in fact, they ignore the finding of voluntariness on the trial court level. See Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 281, 4 L.Ed.2d 242, 249 (1960). At the very beginning of the trial, when an objection was made to the admission of defendant’s confession on the grounds it was not voluntarily given, the court at that time conducted a special hearing, outside the presence of the jury, to determine the question of the voluntariness of the alleged confession. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court, who had a full opportunity to observe the defendant and determine the degree of his addiction, and whose duty it was to judge the credibility of the witness and to determine the weight to be given to his testimony, made the following order:
“The Court at this time will make the ruling as to the voluntariness of the so-called confession or statements.
“There being no showing that there was any request for counsel and denial of counsel, and based upon the circumstanc- ■ es, the Court rules that the statements were voluntary and will be admitted. This same ruling will apply to the execution of the written prescription.”
At conclusion of the testimony the court submitted the case to the jury with proper instructions relative to the question of voluntariness of the admissions made by the defendant, and the jury found against the defendant on the issue of the voluntariness of the confession.
In reference to the other assignments of error, I am in agreement with the way these issues are disposed of by the majority opinion and I am wholly in accord with the solution suggested as to those issues.
For the foregoing reasons I would affirm the judgment of the trial court and would approve the findings and decision of the court of appeals.