Court Opinion

ID: 9686452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:48:33.130566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.111442
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
Inmy view, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-115 (Reissue 1985) served to deny the defendant in this case his due process rights as announced in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964). The Jackson Court held that “[a] defendant objecting to the admission of a confession is entitled to a fair hearing in which both the underlying factual issues and the voluntariness of his confession are actually and reliably determined.” Id. at 380. The Court announced its decision as follows:
It is now axiomatic that a defendant in a criminal case is deprived of due process of law if his conviction is founded, in whole or in part, upon an involuntary confession, without regard for the truth or falsity of the *164confession, Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, and even though there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the conviction. Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401; Stroble v. California, 343 U. S. 181; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560. Equally clear is the defendant’s constitutional right at some stage in the proceedings to object to the use of the confession and to have a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession. Rogers v. Richmond, supra.
Id. at 376-77.
The defendant’s objection at trial to the voluntariness of his statement warranted a separate Jackson v. Denno hearing outside the presence of the jury. This would afford the trial judge the opportunity to make a reliable determination of voluntariness based upon all the evidence. The evidence of voluntariness should not be limited, as it was in this case, to the State’s own witness’ testimony.
This view finds support in the federal case law. Rule 12 of the FederalRules of Criminal Procedure is very similar to § 29-115. Rule 12 provides in relevant part:
(b)... The following must be raised prior to trial:
(3) Motions to suppress evidence----
(f)... Failure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court pursuant to subdivision (c), or prior to any extension thereof made by the court, shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver.
In United States v. Powe, 591 F.2d 833, 839 (D.C. Cir. 1978), the court recognized that “[o]rdinarily, the issue of voluntariness will be raised by the defense, either by a pretrial motion to suppress [citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)] or by objection at trial [citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(f)].” Despite the waiver language in rule 12, the court said, “When an objection is lodged [at trial], the hearing requirements mandated by Jackson v. Denno are triggered, and a hearing must be held out *165of the presence of the jury to determine whether the confession is admissible.” 591 F.2d at 839. See, also, Luck v. United States, 348 F.2d 763 (D.C. Cir. 1965).
For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
Shanahan, J., joins in this dissent.