Court Opinion

ID: 9609160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:23:20.032751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:14.639597
License: Public Domain

BIVINS, Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree with the majority on the sentencing and “Franklin" issues. I also agree with the standard of review for claims of involuntary confessions as set forth in the majority opinion. My disagreement goes solely to the application of that standard to the facts of this case. Therefore, I would affirm in cause No. CR-85-223, and reverse and remand for a new trial in Cause No. CR-85-231. While rejecting the substantial evidence test, the majority has, I respectfully submit, succumbed to the habit of accepting only the evidence that supports the finding of voluntariness, rather than making an independent determination and drawing its own conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances as to how the accused reacted. This is evident by the failure to recite all the facts. I will summarize the facts, including additional facts pertinent to the issue. Unavoidably, this summary includes some of the facts already set forth in the majority opinion. Chief Barela said he read and explained the Miranda warnings to defendant prior to questioning him, and he “thought” defendant understood what he was saying. Chief Barela had known defendant for several years; he knew that defendant’s family had had problems with him and that defendant had been committed to the New Mexico State Hospital. Chief Barela acknowledged that he encouraged defendant to confess to the burglary by assuring him that a confession would be taken into favorable consideration by everyone concerned. Chief Barela further admitted having told defendant that the police had found the perpetrator’s fingerprints at the scene of the burglary, although no fingerprints were introduced at trial. Finally, Chief Barela admitted having implied that, if he did not confess, defendant could be charged in connection with unrelated incidents of vandalism in Dexter. On cross-examination, Chief Barela explained, “what I intended to convey to him was that if I had to work and the D.A.’s had to put a lot of work into it, this would not be good.” I disagree with the majority and believe Chief Barela’s statements during the interrogation can be classified as implied threats and promises. See State v. Tindle, 104 N.M. 195, 718 P.2d 705 (Ct.App.1986); see also State v. Watson, 82 N.M. 769, 487 P.2d 197 (Ct.App.1971). These improper inducements, standing alone, might not warrant a suppression of defendant’s confession. See State v. Tindle. However, as indicated by the majority, the trial court was required, under the second and third prongs of the voluntariness analysis, to consider also the effect of the improper inducements on defendant, given defendant’s mental limitations and his possible susceptibility to the pressures of the interrogation or his inability to comprehend the circumstances. See State v. Benavidez, 87 N.M. 223, 531 P.2d 957 (Ct.App.1975). Defendant was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In the eighteen months preceding his arrest, defendant was committed to the state hospital on two occasions, suffering from both visual and auditory hallucinations. On one of those occasions, defendant had set the family home on fire to prevent an attack from space aliens. On another occasion, defendant saw the devil in his mother’s eyes. At the time of his arrest, defendant was on a discharge plan from the state hospital that required him to take anti-psychotic medication daily and to attend weekly mental therapy counseling. A forensic evaluator, Frank Everitt, testified that the anti-psychotic medication prescribed for defendant acts to correct a chemical imbalance in the brain, thereby stopping the hallucinations. Everitt stressed, however, that medication does not cure schizophrenia, but only gives relief from its acute symptoms. Although there was no evidence that defendant was actively schizophrenic at the time of his arrest and interrogation, Everitt testified that individuals who are paranoid schizophrenics are “easily confused” and may suffer “carry-over symptoms, such as blocking, difficulties with judgment, and difficulties with impulse control.” Everitt testified that, due to defendant’s subnormal intelligence and his mental illness, defendant likely had difficulty in appreciating the meaning of Chief Barela’s assurance and in distinguishing whether a deal had been made. Everitt also said he had read Chief Barela’s report of the interrogation, and he believed the interrogation would have been stressful to defendant, possibly causing defendant to act impulsively. Finally, Everitt testified that when he asked defendant why he made the statement to police, defendant said it was because he thought Chief Barela was promising him “a good deal.” The state offered no contrary expert opinions. When the voluntariness of a confession is challenged, the state bears a heavy burden of establishing that the confession was not extracted by fear, coercion, hope of reward or other improper inducement. State v. Turnbow, 67 N.M. 241, 354 P.2d 533 (1960); State v. Tindle. When the alleged inducements are implicit, rather than express, the trial court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances, including the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. State v. Tindle; State v. Aguirre, 91 N.M. 672, 579 P.2d 798 (Ct.App.1978). Even when some evidence supports a finding of voluntary waiver, the finding will be reversed if it cannot be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Bramlett, 94 N.M. 263, 609 P.2d 345 (Ct.App.1980). If the state fails to prove voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court must rule that the confession was involuntary as a matter of law. State v. Austin, 91 N.M. 586, 577 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1978); State v. Watson. Viewing the totality of the circumstances and according proper weight to both defendant’s diminished mental capacity and the undisputed evidence of improper inducements, I find that the state did not meet its burden of showing a free and voluntary confession by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant, in my opinion, is entitled to a new trial, free of his confession.