Court Opinion

ID: 9630600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:15:17.405417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:40.800333
License: Public Domain

ERICKSON, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with part II of Justice Lohr’s opinion for the Court which affirms the determination of sanity. I also concur with parts III-A and III-E of the opinion which reverses the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that the extreme indifference murder statute is unconstitutional and the testimony of the psychiatrist at the trial violated the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination. I join Justice Rovira in his opinion that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was not violated by the police questioning in this case.
I do not agree, however, with that part of the opinion which addresses issues which may occur in the course of a new trial and which are not essential to our decision. I would restrict the court’s decision reversing the defendant’s conviction to the analysis in parts III-A and III-E, and I dissent to that part of the opinion which is directed at issues which may arise in a new trial. Some of the issues which are addressed may not arise in the course of a new trial and may have a different factual predicate than that developed during the defendant’s initial trial.
ROVIRA, Justice, concurring in part and delivering the majority opinion on the issue presented in Part III-G of Justice Lohr’s opinion.
We concur except as to Part III-G. Further, for the purposes of this majority opinion, we adopt the statement of the facts and issue as set forth in Part III-G of Justice Lohr’s opinion.
It is clear that the defendant has the right to cut off questioning and reassert his rights under the Fifth Amendment at any time. In addition, once invoked, the right to cut off questioning must be scrupulously honored. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96,96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). However, we believe that the defendant failed to invoke his right to cut off questioning. Accordingly, the police properly continued the interrogation of the defendant.
When the officers inquired about the spanking of the child, the defendant responded with a question: “Why should I tell you about it when I can tell a jury about it?” This reply cannot be construed to be an indication that the defendant wished to terminate the questioning. “Miranda should not be read so strictly as to require the police to accept as conclusive any statement, no matter how ambiguous, as a sign that the suspect desires to cut off questioning.” Lamb v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 307, 312, 227 S.E.2d 737, 741 (1976). See also Vail v. State, 599 P.2d 1371 (Alaska 1979); State v. House, 54 Ohio St.2d 297, 376 N.E.2d 588 (1978).
In the present case, it is uncontested that the defendant was fully advised of his rights, including the right to stop the interrogation at any time. Further, the trial court found that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent. Under these circumstances, had the defendant wished to termi*776nate all further interrogation, he easily could have done so by simply stating that he did not want to answer any further questions. State v. Nichols, 212 Kan. 814, 512 P.2d 329 (1973); Lamb v. Commonwealth, supra; Akers v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 40, 216 S.E.2d 28 (1975).
There is ample support in the record for the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s response did not indicate that he wished to terminate the questioning. Furthermore, there are no allegations of any coercion or undue influence exerted by the police officers. Accordingly, we will not disturb the ruling of the trial court, and we conclude that since the defendant’s rights were scrupulously honored the admission of his statement was proper.
HODGES, C. J., and LEE and ERICKSON, JJ., concur.