Court Opinion

ID: 9684637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:05:45.125797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:58.213695
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge,
dissenting.
The majority opinion finds that the appellant had waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and his Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present during questioning. I cannot agree.
*928The testimony reveals that appellant voluntarily surrendered to the Galveston County Sheriff’s Department accompanied by his attorney, Mr. Richard Thornton. At that time, Mr. Thornton advised Captain Whitburn and other officers present that he represented the appellant. Thornton further informed the officers that appellant was ill and under several types of medication. He told the officers that he did not want the appellant interrogated unless he was present during the questioning. That the officers agreed to this demand is supported by Thornton’s own testimony and the fact that no Galveston law enforcement officer attempted to question the appellant.
Appellant was later transferred to the Texas City Police Department by Sgt. Deril Oliver. Oliver testified that he was aware that appellant was being represented by Mr. Thornton. He further stated that appellant had not at any time requested to see his attorney or use the telephone. Appellant, on the other hand, testified that he had told Sgt. Oliver that his attorney did not want him to make a statement unless the attorney was present. He stated that the officers would not allow him to call Mr. Thornton and that one of the officers had grabbed him by the collar and pulled him out of his chair. He did say that the officers did not strike him or promise him anything, but that the officers told the appellant he would be there all night without his medication if he did not make a statement.
Oliver and appellant both testified that when Oliver first interrogated the appellant he was emotionally upset to the point that he was crying. Oliver testified that he had appellant taken back to his cell for four hours before the questioning continued. Appellant, however, stated that the interrogation had been continuous up until the time he signed the statement.
There can be no serious doubt in the present case that Officer Oliver deliberately set out to elicit incriminating information from appellant. Oliver was fully aware before he left Galveston and during every minute of the interrogation that appellant was being represented by Mr. Thornton. Yet in the face of this knowledge, Oliver admitted that he continued to interrogate the appellant. His reasons can best be illustrated from his testimony on cross examination by Mr. Thornton:
“Q Do you recall me asking you why in the world you were taking a statement from a person you knew I was representing?
A Yes sir.
Q Yes, your answer wasn’t your answer to the effect that you had a job to do and you were going to do it regardless?
A I think I said something like I was obligated to make the best possible case and I am obligated to use every illegal means available to do it.
Q Regardless of whether he had an attorney or anything else, is that correct?
A I could care less if he had two lawyers.
Q That’s right, you could care less?
A That’s exactly right.”
This indicates a clear disregard for the appellant’s right to have his counsel present during the interrogation.
In Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977), the United States Supreme Court, in comparing that case to Massiah v. U. S., 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1963), stated that “ . . . the clear rule of Massiah is that once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him.”
Of course, the majority in the instant case recognized appellant’s right to have counsel present, but felt that appellant had waived that right. The burden of proving waiver is with the State. And, that burden is onerous as this Court stated in McKittrick v. State, 541 S.W.2d 177, 183 (Tex.Cr.App.1976):
“Miranda, of course, teaches that a heavy burden rests upon the prosecution to prove that a person in custody ‘knowingly and intelligently’ waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628.
The determination of whether there has been such an intelligent waiver must de*929pend upon the particular facts in each case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). Thus, courts must approach the question of waiver in each case on an ad hoc basis. Narro v. United States, 370 F.2d 329, 330 (5th Cir.1966). See also McCandless v. State, 425 S.W.2d 636, 640 (Tex.Cr.App.1968).”
The record reflects conflicting testimony between Oliver and appellant as to whether appellant had asserted his right to counsel. In face of this conflicting testimony plus the officer’s knowledge that appellant was represented and Oliver’s statements that he “could care less” if appellant was represented pointed up the fact that there was no waiver of appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
The majority seems to rely on the fact that the record does not show that the agreement not to interrogate appellant made by the Galveston County Sheriff’s Office was communicated to Sgt. Oliver. On the other hand, the record does not show that the agreement was not relayed to Oliver.
If the agreement had been relayed to Oliver, we are faced with a factual situation almost identical to that in Brewer, where Mr. Justice Stevens stated in his concurrence:
“If, in the long run, we are seriously concerned about the individual’s effective representation by counsel, the State cannot be permitted to dishonor its promise to this lawyer.”
If the agreement had not been communicated to Oliver, we are faced with a far more difficult question. Are we to allow law enforcement officials to circumvent an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by shuffling him back and forth until he is in the hands of the an officer who is unaware of a prior commitment made to the accused’s attorney? See Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1964); Massiah v. U. S., supra. Such a policy would effectively deny an attorney the opportunity to stop interrogations unless he was present. That such a policy should not be adopted is graphically illustrated in a situation where the accused is under medication, is ill, or is in any way incapacitated to the point that he might not be able to continuously urge his right to counsel in the face of police interrogation. An attorney representing a client with this incapacity should be able to preclude any interrogation without his presence.
In the instant case, the appellant was under several types of medication and was emotionally distraught. Realizing his client’s inability to assert his own constitutional rights, Mr. Thornton, the appellant’s attorney, told the Galveston Police Officers that he did not want the appellant interrogated. in his absence. The Galveston authorities acquiesced in this request.
In view of these circumstances, the State has not borne its burden of showing that the appellant’s rights were “scrupulously honored”, nor have they shown a waiver of the appellant’s right to counsel. See Hearne v. State, 534 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Jurek v. State, 522 S.W.2d 934 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); McKittrick v. State, supra.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
ONION, P. J., and ROBERTS and W. C. DAVIS, JJ„ join.