Court Opinion

ID: 9735445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:15:35.630186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:58.690663
License: Public Domain

KINGSLEY, J.
—I dissent. As I view the record in this case, it shows that, prior to the warning of constitutional rights given to defendant by Officer Harper after the latter had taken defendant into his custody and placed him in the police car, there had been discussions between defendant and police officers concerning the O’Neal shooting and defendant’s part therein.
*63I agree with the majority opinion that we must regard the prosecutor’s opening statement as having been made in good faith. But, if we do so, we are faced with a record which shows, affirmatively, that the police had suspected defendant on the basis of their conversation with the mysterious Mr. Green, had gone in search of him, had located him, and had secured a confession. Since Officer Harper was told, over a police radio, to go to defendant’s home because the man who had shot O’Neal had confessed, it follows that there had been a confession before Officer Harper arrived on the scene. In addition, when Officer Harper did arrive at defendant’s residence, he found defendant surrounded by police officers, obviously still discussing the crime and admitting (contrary to his later defense) that he had been at the place of the shooting during the evening.
It seems to me that, under the rules laid down in People v. Davis (1967) 66 Cal.2d 175 [57 Cal.Rptr. 130, 424 P.2d 682], People v. Stockman (1965) 63 Cal.2d 494 [47 Cal.Rptr. 365, 407 P.2d 277], People v. Falk (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 398 [54 Cal.Rptr. 488], and People v. McGee (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 203 [47 Cal.Rptr. 640], that there was a burden on the prosecution to show that these earlier discussions either had themselves been preceded by adequate Dorado warnings, or that they were, for some reason, either volunteered statements or responses to purely preliminary investigations. That was not done.
This is not a case where the possibility of some interrogation prior to that offered in evidence is a matter of pure speculation. As I have pointed out, the prosecution’s own case shows affirmatively that there had been significant earlier conversations between the police and defendant. Once that appears in the record, the prosecution has a duty to go forward and explain the circumstances under which those conversations took place.
While it is true that this issue was not raised at the very first opportunity, it was raised, argued, and ruled on in the trial court during the trial. This, in my opinion, was sufficient to reserve it for our consideration here.
I would reverse.
Appellant's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied February 8, 1968.