Court Opinion

ID: 9737105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:16:03.68894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.555836
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
concurring.
I thoroughly agree with the majority opinion that there is sufficient evidence to bind the defendant over for trial on the merits to the district court. However, I wish to point out that this determination is in no way *520controlling, or even indicative of the proper disposition of the issue of proximate cause, on the trial of this case. The determination of this issue must abide the exploration of all of the evidence on the trial of the case on its merits. It is not necessary that the evidence at a preliminary hearing be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty or that it show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel. Pribyl v. Frank, 165 Neb. 239, 85 N. W. 2d 328; Neudeck v. Buettow, 166 Neb. 649, 90 N. W. 2d 254. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence, but simply to determine whether society is justified in holding a defendant so that the issue of guilt or innocence may be fully explored after an investigation and presentation of all of the evidence on the relevant issues. As soon as this clear demarcation line between the purposes of a preliminary hearing and the trial on its merits is understood, most of the questions presented in this case have cleared up. The purpose of the criminal law is to protect society. The integrity and adaptability of the adversary system of criminal justice to accomplish this purpose and yet protect the rights of defendants is one of the great principles of our constitutional system. It is for the courts to protect the basic principles of fairness, not only to the defendant but also to the State. I do not believe that our adversary system should become distorted into a racing game in which the essential issue of guilt or innocence is not the final objective but rather whether, under the prompt constitutional urgency of an immediate preliminary hearing, society can be forced to produce immediately after arrest all of the competent and relevant evidence necessary to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. The concept of fundamental fairness within the due process clause requires, within the framework of our adversary system, that the defendant’s rights are fully protected in all of their developing and burdensome ramifications. By the same token, it should be permitted as a minimum that the *521State, be given a full opportunity to explore, investigate, and present the evidence of guilt in order to carry this increasingly onerous burden. In our laudable constitutional zeal to protect individual rights we should not permit our adversary system of criminal jurisprudence to become distorted and perhaps converted into a device for the escape of the guilty and a mockery of the truth.
The record before us reveals grave questions as to the issue of proximate cause. I fail to see, at this point, how defendant’s clandestine purpose or motivation in visiting her paramour is at all relevant to either the issue of neglect or proximate cause,. This is a manslaughter case, and intent or purpose or motive is immaterial. Her conduct would be neither more nor less culpable or causative if her absence was for the, purpose of visiting her minister, or, for that matter, absenting herself to consult with a social welfare agency about the care of her children. Is the fact that she removed herself from the visual proximity of her children, or the length of time that she so removed herself, the competent producing or proximate cause, of the child’s death? The direct cause of this child’s death was a fire, occurring not more than an hour and a half or two hours after she left the home. Just how the balance of the three or four hour period of time she was gone, is relevant to the establishment of the issues of neglect and proximate cause in this case does not appear at this time. I see considerable difference, even as a matter of law, between a case in which a hungry child after being left alone all day drinks a bottle of poison liquid left exposed, and one, in which a child is killed in a crib as a result of a fire a few minutes after the mother has left (even in her own home) and is out of the visual and hearing proximity of her child for a considerable time later. And, it may be that the detailed facts surrounding the exact location of the child, the previous conduct of the mother, and the possible conditions which might result in danger to the child which were present and should have been *522known to the defendant, all may be highly relevant to determine the crucial issue of guilt and proximate cause in this case. I shall not take the facts as they rather sketchily appear in this record and attempt to relate them precisely to the rationale, of the relevant rules of law as to proximate cause. Intentional misconduct is irrelevant but reasonably foreseeable harm and the legally imposed risk resulting therefrom are highly relevant issues. The close question of whether they may be determined as a matter of law or whether they present a jury question must abide determination of the case on its merits.
Turning now to the dissent, which further extends the thrust of Miranda to preliminary hearings, I feel that something further should be said in this respect. First, the defendant came voluntarily to the police station. Her statement was taken beginning 5 minutes after the, time she arrived. There is not a suggestion or intimation in this record that there was any compulsion, coercion, intimidation, or “psychological pressure” exerted on her. There was a complete absence, as I read the evidence, of any Miranda-declared implied coercion resulting from an “in custody” required interrogation by the police officers. She was not being detained for the purpose of eliciting incriminating admissions. The defendant was not arrested or informed that charges would be presented against her until late in the afternoon, as the majority opinion points out. Investigation was the emphasis and not the accusatory interrogation. The plain implication of the dissenting opinion is to the effect that voluntary disclosure of information to the police, if made at the, police station, is prohibited as an “in custody” interrogation under the Miranda doctrine. This unwarranted expansion we cannot conceive to be the law even under the furtherest reach of the Miranda holding. Unless police interrogation is to be indicted absolutely, there must be some minimum requirement of affirmative action on their part *523over the physical custody and control of a defendant before the implied coercion of an “in custody” interrogation can be held to become operative. Despite the innuendoes and declarations made in many of the United States Supreme Court opinions on this subject, I do mot believe that the courts can or should ever declare that coercion begins at the door of the police station as a matter of law.
Second, the evidence shows conclusively that, despite the voluntary nature of the defendant’s statements, she was affirmatively warned of her right to remain silent and that anything she, might say might be used against her. Is it possible that a voluntary statement, made after such a warning, is so inherently constitutionally evil and objectionable that society and law enforcement may not even use it in the apprehension and detention of an accused?
Third, after all of her statements were made, the defendant consulted with her attorney at the police station at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon on the day in question and after this consultation, and in the presence of the attorney, she stated that she had given the written statements and that they were true. In the light of all this, and giving full scope to the Miranda holding, it seems well-nigh incredible that such conduct on the part of the law enforcement officers could be held to be constitutionally evil.
But, quite as disturbing, is the contention, assuming a violation of Miranda, that such evidence is not admissible at a preliminary hearing to determine the issue of probable cause. Not only is a preliminary hearing not a trial, but our court and the federal courts have repeatedly held that under Nebraska law a preliminary hearing is not a critical stage of a criminal proceeding and that no constitutional rights are in jeopardy as a result thereof. Even the. hallowed and undenied right to counsel or representation at a preliminary hearing is not required, and this is particularly true where, as here, the defend*524ant offered no testimony and made no admissions. State v. Sheldon, 179 Neb. 377, 138 N. W. 2d 428; Burnside v. State, 346 F. 2d 88; Ronzzo v. Sigler, 235 F. Supp. 839; Bird v. Sigler, 241 F. Supp. 1007; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923. It is difficult, if not inconceivable, to understand a contention that there is no constitutional requirement of counsel at a preliminary hearing, but yet that there is a constitutional requirement of counsel being present at the giving and taking of a voluntary statement prior thereto.
Behind the legal structure of this case lie the realities of necessities of law enforcement. It is one thing to say that when society apprehends an individual he must be promptly and perhaps immediately brought before a magistrate for a hearing. It is an entirely different thing to say that society at that time must, in effect, present, in full array, completely sufficient proof of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with all of the technical and burdensome ramifications inherent in our adversary criminal trial procedures. Such a holding would inhibit, if not render useless, post-arrest investigation, and emasculate law enforcement, particularly as to those types of violent crimes where immediate apprehension and detention is imperative if society is to be protected.