Court Opinion

ID: 9528320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:39:45.574183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:42.169230
License: Public Domain

*691COLER, Justice
(dissenting).
Granting the issue presented is not the same, the facts which were presented describing the procedure followed by the same polygraph examiner and also resulting in a confession which followed earlier Miranda warnings, it is impossible for me to discern a clear difference between this case and that of State v. Adkins, 1975, 88 S.D. 571, 225 N.W.2d 599. The trial court fully complied with the requirements of Jackson v. Denno, 1964, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205; State v. Thundershield, 83 S.D. 414, 160 N.W.2d 408; State v. Seal, 1968, 83 S.D. 455, 160 N.W.2d 643.
In addition to a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court had the benefit of the transcript of the preliminary hearing covering the same subject matter of compliance with the Miranda decision and determination of whether the statements made by the defendant were voluntary. On that record the trial court properly entered Findings of Fact clearly supported by that record.*
*692The majority opinion adds a new dimension to the Miranda warning citing as authority State v. Cullison, 1974, Iowa, 215 N.W.2d 309. The Iowa court, in that decision affirming the trial court’s suppression of a confession, appears to establish a requirement that the forms used by polygraph examiners must restate the Miranda warnings. This ignores the general rule that the questions of whether a confession is voluntary and whether there has been a knowledgeable waiver of constitutional rights should be determined from the totality of the circumstances. To place such emphasis on repetitive statements of constitutional rights borders on ritual and undue emphasis of the trivial, placing form over substance and ignoring the true intent of the rule. State v. Bonrud, 1973, 87 S.D. 130, 203 N.W.2d 793; State v. Johnson, 1972, 87 S.D. 43, 202 N.W.2d 132.
The better and widely accepted rule, I submit, is found in People v. Hill, 1968, 39 Ill.2d 125, 233 N.E.2d 367, cert. denied; 1968, 392 U.S. 936, 88 S.Ct. 2305, 20 L.Ed.2d 1394, as follows:
“It should be made clear that once Miranda’s mandate was complied with at the threshold of the questioning it was not necessary to repeat the warnings at the beginning of each successive interview. To adopt an automatic second-warning system would be to add a perfunctory ritual to police procedures rather than providing the meaningful set of procedural safeguards envisioned by Miranda. ” (cite omitted)
I would affirm on the basis that “there was ample evidence; to sustain the trial judge’s finding that the confession was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Aschmeller, 1973, 87 S.D. 367, 209 N.W.2d 369.
The majority opinion, citing Westover v. United States, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974, declares the confession “is tainted by the previous statements and; cannot be considered voluntary.” This position renders a further, hearing on the question of timely Miranda warnings meaningless. ‘

 In part the findings of the trial court upon which the order declaring the confession admissible was based upon were:
“II.
That the defendant, Larry Gene Faller, had sufficient intelligence to understand the rights explained to him by the law enforcement officers.
III.
That the defendant, Larry Gene Faller, was advised of his rights on several. occasions by law enforcement officers as they testified prior to his giving the incriminating admissions and written statement in question.
IV.
That the defendant, Larry Gene Faller, knew that he was going to Sioux Falls for the purpose of taking a lie detector test on the alleged facts of the shooting in question. That no trickery was employed by law enforcement officers.
V.
That the incriminating admissions and written confession of the defendant, Larry Gene Faller, were intelligently and voluntarily made and the rights of said defendant under Miranda v. United States and SDCL 23-44-2 were observed by the officials.
VI.
That the requirements as set forth by the South Dakota Supreme Court in the cases of State v. Johnson, 1972, 87 S.D. 43, 202 N.W.2d 132; State v. Thundershield, 83 S.D. 414, 160 N.W.2d 408 (1968); and State v. Kiehn, 86 S.D. 549, 199 N.W.2d 594 (1972) have been met by the State of South Dakota.”