Court Opinion

ID: 9542157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:34.063441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:51.672250
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
JACOBSON, Judge.
This court filed its opinion in this matter in State v. Sepulveda, 1 CA-CR 2392 (Ariz. Ct.App. filed February 2, 1978), reversing defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial. The basis for this reversal was the improper introduction of a probation officer’s testimony concerning statements made by the defendant during preparation of a pre-sentence report in conjunction with a submission of guilt subsequently withdrawn.
*182Appellee’s motion for rehearing urges this court to take the position that such statements should be treated in a manner analogous to statements made by a defendant when he has not been given his Miranda warnings. Such treatment would mean that while the statements may not be used in the state’s case in chief, they may properly be introduced in rebuttal, after the defendant takes the stand. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971).
In support of this position, appellee points out that the policy of encouraging a defendant to be candid with his probation officer is served by precluding the use of his statements in direct evidence. However, by completely precluding their use in rebuttal, a defendant is encouraged to take the stand and commit perjury with impunity. As a result, the judicial process is restricted in fulfilling its major purpose—ascertaining the truth.
While we find merit in appellee’s position, we believe that the language of Rule 26.-6(d)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure is controlling and is not subject to such an interpretation. Rule 26.6(d)(2) provides:
“Neither a pre-sentence report nor any statement made in connection with its preparation shall be admissible as evidence in any proceeding bearing on the evidence of guilt.” (Emphasis added.)
The preclusion is not limited to just “direct evidence.” 1 Until our Supreme Court says differently, we are bound to enforce the rule in accordance with its terms.
1. As pointed out in our prior opinion, in addition to Rule 26.6(d)(2), the comments to Rule 26.4 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure use even broader language in providing that such statements may not “ . . . be introduced at trial.
Motion for rehearing is denied.
EUBANK, P. J., and WREN, J., concur.