Court Opinion

ID: 9747730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:29:40.202987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:25.724210
License: Public Domain

EAGEN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the evidence of Walker’s custodial incriminating statement should have been suppressed and that use of the evidence at trial constitutes reversible error. I do so because in my view the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of showing there was a voluntary waiver of constitutional rights before this evidence was obtained.
The record shows that four hours elapsed between Walker’s initial exercise and subsequent waiver of his right to remain silent and the location and circumstances of custody were changed significantly. Furthermore, no evidence exists to show the police in any manner coerced Walker into waiving his rights. But the record also shows Walker was intoxicated and in poor physical condition and fails to show the effects of the intoxication and poor physical condition had dissipated at the time Walker waived his rights. Thus, because of the intoxication and physical condition, I must conclude that the Commonwealth failed to show a voluntary waiver.
But, absent these two factors, I believe that Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1976), would be controlling instantly because the police did honor Walker’s assertion of his right to remain silent and merely asking him some four hours later, under the circumstances disclosed, if he still wished to exercise his right to remain silent does not amount to an attempt to coerce, nor does it suggest a disrespect for or dishonor of Walker’s right to remain silent. Thus, much of what *547was said in Michigan v. Mosley, supra at 105, 96 S.Ct. at 327, is applicable here, particularly:
“This is not a case . . . where the police failed to honor a decision of a person in custody to cut off questioning, either by refusing to discontinue the interrogation upon request or by persisting in repeated efforts to wear down his resistance and make him change his mind. In contrast to such practices, the police here immediately ceased the interrogation, resumed questioning only after the passage of a significant period of time and the provision of a fresh set of warnings . . .
Thus, had the Commonwealth here adequately met its burden of showing that the effects of intoxication and Walker’s overall physical condition had worn off, I believe the change in circumstances, the absence of any attempt to coerce, and the honoring of the original desire to remain silent by not questioning Walker would have been sufficient to show an effective waiver when coupled with fresh warnings, appropriate responses, and followed closely by a statement. See, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
It is true that in Michigan v. Mosley, supra, the waiver which followed the prior exercise of the right to remain silent, was made with regard to a different crime. But, how that fact affects an otherwise knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver is not pointed out in Mr. Justice Manderino’s opinion. Further, I do not believe that factor was essential to the decision in Michigan v. Mosley, supra.
This Court has held that a person may effectively waive his right to counsel after having previously exercised it, and the waiver was considered effective without regard to the subject matter of the crime. Indeed, where we so held the waiver of counsel followed the exercise of the right to counsel with regard to the same crime. Commonwealth v. Bullock, 459 Pa. 243, 328 A.2d 493 *548(1974); Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 448 Pa. 206, 292 A.2d 302 (1972). A fortiori, given a significant change in circumstances, an accused may effectively waive his right to remain silent following a prior exercise of that right even if the questioning involves the same crime.
I would add that the opinion of Mr. Justice Manderino needlessly reaches the question of whether Walker’s waiver could as a matter of law, be effective, because under the circumstances presented it was, in fact, not effective. Thus, the more difficult legal question could very easily be avoided.
Further, I do not join in Mr. Justice Manderino’s opinion for other reasons:
First, it relies heavily on Commonwealth v. Bullard, 465 Pa. 341, 350 A.2d 797 (1976). I dissented in Bullard, supra, because the facts of that case did not support the position that Bullard ever exercised his right to remain silent. The facts of this case are distinguishable because here Walker clearly did initially express a desire to remain silent. Thus, in my view, Bullard, supra is in-apposite.
Second, even assuming Bullard did initially express a desire to remain silent, both Bullard, supra, and today’s decision imply, if they do not in fact state, that “yes” and “no” responses to standard warnings present a situation which requires this Court to analyze the issue as if the accused never expressed a willingness to waive his rights. See, Bullard, supra at 347-349, 350 A.2d at 800; Opinion of the Court, 470 Pa. -, -, 368 A.2d 1284, 1289 (1977). In doing so, Bullard, supra, and today’s decision imply standard warnings and “yes” and “no” responses are not sufficient. For example, Bullard, supra at 347-349, 350 A.2d at 800, referred to standard warnings as “pro forma” and today’s decision refers to “yes” and “no” responses as “mere.” Further, both decisions refer to “yes” and “no” responses to standard warnings as mere “acquiescence,” that is, as if the accused merely *549“acquiesced in the face of interrogation.” Neither Bullard, supra, nor this case present silent records and the propriety of treating standard warnings followed by “yes” and “no” responses as acquiescence or silence is not only a questionable method of analysis since it defies logic, experience, and ordinary common sense to say that a verbal expression just because it is short is silence, but also since such a position will lead to an erosion of the protections afforded an accused by Miranda.
If standard warnings and “yes” and “no” responses are to be treated as silent acquiescence, then this Court must be demanding more of both the police and the accused. Are the police to depart from standard warnings? Are the police to request an accused to say more than “yes” and “no” in responding to warnings? In my view, standard warnings are the most desirable form of warnings and “yes” and “no” responses are certainly adequate and acceptable responses.
If we require more than standard warnings by the police, then the danger that an accused will be misled either deliberately or inadvertently will be seriously increased. If we require more than definite and precise responses, such as “yes” and “no”, then we will be forcing the police to interpret what more protracted responses are given. Also, our courts will then be forced to interpret those responses in each and every case.
Both standard warnings and “yes” and “no” responses are the most desirable form of warnings and responses in most instances. Use of standard warnings avoids any danger that a police officer, who is not necessarily learned in the law, will mislead an accused. Moreover, they inform an accused concisely and realistically of alternatives and possible consequences. In terms of predictability and definiteness, “yes” and “no” responses serve the accused, the police, and the courts quite well because they do not admit of misinterpretation.
*550While requiring more than standard warnings and “yes” and “no” responses may appear to advance the rights of an accused by limiting the manner in which he may effectively waive his rights, in reality, such a position erodes the protections Miranda provides an accused by departing from easily understood warnings and responses into vague explanations of one’s rights by the police and into responses which are less definite and clear,
JONES, C. J., and O’BRIEN and POMEROY, JJ„ join in this opinion.