Court Opinion

ID: 9767182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:12:09.186611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.287891
License: Public Domain

OPINION
HUTCHINSON, Justice.
A jury convicted appellee of voluntary manslaughter and related charges in connection with the stabbing death of her infant daughter on Easter Sunday, March 26, 1978. The trial court vacated the conviction and granted her a new trial on the ground that her spontaneous statements to police were not voluntary because they were prompted by internal compulsion resulting from her paranoid schizophrenic mental condition. The Commonwealth appealed directly to this Court.1
We hold that neither the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution nor our own constitution require the suppression of statements made by a criminal defendant as “involuntary” in the absence of custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent.
The testimony at trial as to the statements made by the appellee to the police, did not differ materially from the testimony at the suppression hearing. That testimony was as follows: Several Philadelphia police officers observed her running naked down the street. When one of the officers, Officer Young, attempted to stop appellee, she screamed and continued to run. The officers followed appellee for approximately four and one-half blocks until she entered a house.
Officer Branch entered the house and asked appellee why she was running. She did not respond to him but told two ladies sitting with her, “Me and Bobby were fighting. He *360had a butcher knife. The baby got in the way. I tried to take it away from him.” Because appellee had what appeared to be blood on her hands and forehead, Officer Branch, accompanied by Deborah Clark, one of the women present in the house, transported appellee to the hospital.
After appellee arrived at the hospital, Officer Palma, who did not know her, told Officer Branch that there were “goofy people on Easter Sunday, since some woman had just stabbed her daughter and killed her”. Appellee overheard this comment and dropped to her knees, became hysterical, began banging her hands on the floor and shouted: “Oh my God, I didn’t mean to do it”, “He killed her”, and “Don’t tell me my baby is dead”. “Bobby Little did it.” The officers managed to calm appellee and placed her in a chair. After the expiration of several minutes, appellee tugged on Officer Troutner’s sleeve and stated: “Officer, I didn’t mean to do my baby. I wanted to kill him. I didn’t want to kill my baby.”2
While appellee was being escorted to the patrol wagon shortly thereafter, she became hysterical and screamed: “Nickie, Nickie, Nickie” and “I am sorry. I didn’t mean it Nickie.” Officer Daly then placed appellee in the back of the patrol wagon. Several minutes into the ride from the hospital to the Police Administration Building, appellee began to chant a religious psalm and stamp her feet. Appellee maintained her chanting and stamping for approximately fifteen minutes. At about 11:30 A.M. in the Police Administration Building, Officer Kuhar attempted to obtain background information such as appellee’s name, address and Social Security number. Appellee refused to answer. At about 12:45 P.M., Officer Kuhar attempted to read the Miranda warnings to appellee. She said she did not have to *361hear or to answer them. Officer Kuhar asked her to read her rights and record her answers. She read them and wrote “yes” by question number 3, “Do you want to remain silent.” Although Officer Kuhar did not question appellee, she spontaneously stated:
Elvita died 30th of May, 1976, between 4:00 and 4:30 P.M., 24th or 25th and Lehigh. I am Eve now. Bobby beat Elvita, beat her head. Elvita then left Bobby and became Eve. Today Nakia and Elvita are together in spirit. Eve put Nakia in spirit today.3
Subsequently, when appellee was taken before the Arraignment Court she suddenly stated that she was guilty and had killed her baby. She also told a matron she had killed her baby.
The suppression judge concluded that the police did not attempt to interrogate appellee and that finding is supported by the record. The suppression judge declined to suppress the appellee’s spontaneous statements ruling they were volunteered and were not in response to any psychological or physical coercion by the police.4 Moreover, the suppression judge concluded that since the police did not interrogate appellee, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) did not require the officers to warn her of her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Appellee’s spontaneous statements were admitted at trial. However, following her conviction, the trial judge granted her motion for a new trial on the ground that her spontaneous statements were involuntary and therefore should have been suppressed. The trial judge relied on testimony of Dr. Cooke, a defense psychiatrist, who testified at the suppression hearing that:
*362. . . [Defendant’s] mental status . . . was one of confusion, anxiety, hostility, delusions, hallucinations, anger, and that she could consistently experience directly contradictory ideas and feelings so that she was so confused that she could not make a logical determination: This is what I want to do; this is what I do not want to do. In the process of all that confusion, many statements would emerge, which taken as a totality, would indicate the contradictory kinds of feelings she has.5
The trial judge also considered trial testimony admitted to prove appellee’s insanity, including evidence that appellee believed Nakia (her baby) had tried to kill her; Nakia had turned into an animal; appellee was the Messiah; appellee had baptized Nakia and sent Nakia’s good part to heaven; and she now wanted to send Nakia’s bad part to heaven. The trial court also considered testimony that appellee had a history of mental illness for two years prior to the killing and that she had experienced auditory and visual hallucinations and delusions during that period.
I
Prior to Miranda, confessions were examined under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The central concern in determining the admissibility of a confession or other statements of an accused was whether they may properly be viewed as voluntary, insofar as they were not elicited as the result of any pressure likely to overcome the confessor’s will. See J. Cook, Constitutional Rights of the Accused, Trial Rights § 71 (1974). More. specifically, the United States Supreme Court in its pre-Miranda cases considered voluntariness with respect to statements obtained from an individual *363subjected to custodial police interrogation. The means employed by police to extract confessions were the traditional focus of concern. See Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 255 A.2d 534 (1969).
Initially, the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause prohibited the states from using an accused’s confession compelled by means of torture. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). In Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897) the United States Supreme Court, in determining whether a confession was voluntary, followed the Fifth Amendment’s commandment that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The constitutional inquiry is:
[N]ot whether the conduct of state officers in obtaining the confession was shocking, but whether the confession was “free and voluntary; that is, [it] must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. * * * ”.
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1493, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964) (quoting Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. at 542-43, 18 S.Ct. at 187) (citations omitted).
Prior to Miranda, both this Court and the United States Supreme Court recognized that modern custodial interrogation is psychologically oriented and that coercion can be mental as well as physical. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 448, 86 S.Ct. at 1614 (citing Blackburn v. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 274, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1940)). See also Commonwealth v. Jones, 341 Pa. 541, 19 A.2d 389 (1941) (if defendant was compelled by reason of force, violence, threat or otherwise, or intimidation of any kind to make the statements, they are excluded as involuntary).
Pre-Miranda, in determining whether a confession following custodial interrogation was involuntary, the courts also considered the susceptibility of the accused to coercive influ*364enees including a suspect’s age, Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 498 Pa. 405, 446 A.2d 1268 (1982); lack of education, Chambers v. Florida, supra; physical and mental condition, Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961); Commonwealth v. Hernandez, supra; Commonwealth v. Willman, supra; Commonwealth v. Holton, 432 Pa. 11, 247 A.2d 228 (1968); the defendant’s emotional instability and schizophrenia, Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281,1 L.Ed.2d 246 (1957); and probable insanity at the time of interrogation, Blackburn v. Alabama, supra. Our Court has summarized the standard for determining whether a statement made in response to custodial interrogation is voluntary:
[t]he totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement must be examined, including: duration and methods of interrogation; the conditions of confinement; the manifest attitudes of the police toward the defendant; defendant’s physical and psychological condition; and any other condition which may drain the defendant’s power of resistance to suggestion or to undermine his ability to exercise free will. See Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Commonwealth v. Kichline, 468 Pa. 265, 361 A.2d 282 (1976).
Commonwealth v. O’Bryant, 479 Pa. 534, 539-40, 388 A.2d 1059, 1062 (1978), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 990, 99 S.Ct. 589, 58 L.Ed.2d 664 (1978).
However, the pre-Miranda voluntariness doctrine encompassed only “interrogation practices which are likely to exert such pressure upon an individual as to disable him from making a free and rational choice.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 464-65, 86 S.Ct. at 1622-23, (citing Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964)) (emphasis added). See also Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 83 S.Ct. 1336,10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963); Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 65 S.Ct. 781, 89 L.Ed. 1029 (1945); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 64 S.Ct. 921, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944); Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941). Thus, the issue which makes mental illness relevant *365is whether the accused’s will was overcome by overbearing and improper questioning. See Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 498 Pa. 405, 446 A.2d 1268 (1982); Commonwealth v. Holton, 432 Pa. 11, 247 A.2d 228 (1968).
Our interest in the individual’s ability to make a rational choice in determining the voluntariness of a confession for constitutional purposes is “our strong conviction that our system of law enforcement should not operate so as to take advantage of a person” in a weakened condition, whether it is a physical or mental condition. Commonwealth ex rel Gaito v. Maroney, 422 Pa. 171, 179, 220 A.2d 628, 632 (1966) (Roberts, J.) (quoting Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. at 207, 80 S.Ct. at 280). See also In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428,18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). In that light the purpose of the suppression hearing is to determine whether a confession resulting from custodial interrogation is coerced. That determination is to be uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession. See Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964).
II
In Miranda v. Arizona the United States Supreme Court concluded procedural safeguards were necessary to protect a suspect from the inherently compelling pressures of in-custody interrogations “which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely.” Id. 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624. In order to fully guarantee the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination:
He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly *366and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
Id. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630 (footnote omitted).
The Miranda warnings and concomitant determination whether a defendant has made a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights are now prerequisites to the admission of a confession only if an individual is “taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning.” Id. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630 (emphasis added).6 See Commonwealth v. Gardner, 490 Pa. 421, 416 A.2d 1007 (1980) (failure to give defendant Miranda warnings does not bar admission of inculpatory statement which defendant volunteered prior to questioning). See also Anno. 31 A.L.R.3d 565, 676-96 (collecting cases).
Subsequent to Miranda this Court has reviewed statements obtained as a result of custodial interrogations to determine whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and whether defendant voluntarily gave the statement used at trial over his objection. See Commonwealth v. O’Bryant, supra. *367However, the prerequisite for both inquiries remains a custodial interrogation. Thus, we have held a defendant’s statements are admissible if:
[N]ot made in response to police conduct “calculated to, expected to, or likely to evoke admissions.” If the statement is “given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences,” it is admissible notwithstanding the lack of Miranda warnings. Commonwealth v. Yount, 455 Pa. 303, 309, 314 A.2d 242, 246 (1974), citing Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at 726. Miranda warnings are called for only if the police questioning constitutes interrogation; that is, likely or expected to elicit a confession or other incriminating statements. See Commonwealth v. Símala, supra; Commonwealth v. Boone, 467 Pa. 168, 354 A.2d 898 (1975); Commonwealth v. D’Nicuola, 448 Pa. 54, 292 A.2d 333 (1972). Cf. Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 475 Pa. 97, 379 A.2d 1056 (1977).
Commonwealth v. Sero, 478 Pa. 440, 453, 387 A.2d 63, 70 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Simala, 434 Pa. 219, 252 A.2d 575 (1969).
Ill
The trial court’s grant of a new trial in this case is based on its erroneous conclusion that statements of an accused are “involuntary” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment if they result from an internal compulsion to speak caused by mental illness, even in the absence of any conduct by the police reasonably likely to elicit a response from the accused. In so holding, the trial court relied on language in this Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Ritter, 481 Pa. 177, 392 A.2d 305 (1978), cert, denied, 441 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 2014, 60 L.Ed.2d 386 (1979) (Ritter II). In order to properly understand the meaning of Ritter II we must consider it in light of Commonwealth v. Ritter, 462 Pa. 202, 340 A.2d 433 (1975) (Ritter I).
In Ritter I this Court reversed a defendant’s conviction of arson and voluntary manslaughter holding the suppression court erred in declining to suppress a confession which the *368defendant made after one and one-half hours of police interrogation. Based on the following testimony, this Court concluded in Ritter I that his confession was involuntary:
Officer Soprano, testifying at appellant’s suppression hearing, stated that after he initially spoke with appellant, he decided that appellant had a psychiatric problem and, in fact, tried to reach a psychiatrist prior to questioning appellant. In addition, the officer stated that during the course of the interrogation, appellant was whimpering, sobbing and “really looked tired.” Moreover, the officer stated that appellant had not slept for three days prior to his interrogation. . . .
462 Pa. at 203-04,’ 340 A.2d at 433.
Following a remand, the Commonwealth introduced testimony that the defendant volunteered an alleged admission approximately twelve hours after the first confession. In Ritter II this Court stated:
The evidence presented by the prosecution at the suppression hearing preceding appellant’s second trial did not indicate that any of the conditions which compelled us to suppress appellant’s earlier statement to the state police officer had changed in such a way that would indicate that this subsequent statement was voluntary. In fact, the prosecution’s evidence indicates the contrary; that appellant still had not had any rest, that he was “shaky” and “crying,” apparently still suffering from the same psychological pressures that prompted the investigating state police officer to seek psychiatric aid for him.
481 Pa. at 181, 392 A.2d at 307. Consequently, Ritter II held the statements were involuntary. The trial court relied on the following language in Ritter II in support of its conclusion that a statement may be involuntary under the Due Process Clause in the absence of any interrogation by the police:
It is not relevant here that the statement ordered suppressed by us in appellant’s first appeal was allegedly made in response to police questioning while the statement at issue in this appeal was supposedly “spontane*369ous.” In ruling that appellant’s earlier statement to the state police was involuntary, we stated that
“[T]he line of distinction [between a voluntary and involuntary confession] is that at which governing self-direction is lost and compulsion, of whatever nature or however infused, propels or helps to propel the confession.” Id., 462 Pa. at 204, 340 A.2d at 434 quoting from Commonwealth v. Alston, 456 Pa. 128, 317 A.2d 241 (1974).
Commonwealth v. Ritter, 481 Pa. at 181, 392 A.2d at 307.
In Alston and the cases cited therein the defendants were subjected to interrogation prior to the confession. While internal elements impinging upon a defendant’s will such as his physical and psychological condition may render a confession which follows interrogation involuntary, neither the Pennsylvania nor the United States Constitution protect a defendant from statements which originate entirely from internal compulsion resulting from a mental disease. A compulsion to confess does not make the resulting confession inadmissable. We hold today that Ritter II stands only for the proposition that after the police have elicited an “involuntary” confession by interrogation from an obviously mentally ill defendant, subsequent statements which were influenced by or flow from the earlier interrogation may be involuntary even in the absence of further interrogation.
IV
Our standard of review in this case is limited to determining whether the factual findings of the suppression court are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Commonwealth v. Webb, 491 Pa. 329, 421 A.2d 161 (1980). We hold the record supports the suppression court’s finding of fact that the police did not interrogate appellee and his conclusion of law that, as a result, her statements were voluntary within the context of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.7 That *370finding was correct despite the fact that two of her inculpatory statements were made after Miranda warnings were given and she had elected to remain silent. It is well established that a statement which is spontaneously volunteered is admissible notwithstanding a prior assertion of constitutional rights. Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 491 Pa. 300, 421 A.2d 147 (1980). The trial judge erred in reversing the suppression judge’s conclusion based on evidence purportedly unavailable at the suppression hearing, since that evidence was not relevant to the finding that the police did not interrogate appellee.8 The additional evidence presented at trial related to appellee’s mental condition at the time she volunteered her statements. Such evidence is relevant to an inquiry into her competence to make reliable admissions not to the issue of improper interrogation. See Part V, infra.
V
Defense counsel’s objections to the admission of appellee’s statements arguably included the alternate ground that they were inadmissible for testimonial incompetency. See Commonwealth v. Mozzillo, 443 Pa. 171, 278 A.2d 874 (1971). The trial court opinion does not clearly place any reliance on this alternate ground and appellee does not argue the competency issue here. However, as the dissent correctly concludes, the Commonwealth offered appellee’s statements not to establish the truth of their content but as circumstantial evidence of her mental condition. Consequently, testimonial trustworthiness was not in issue and her *371statements were properly admitted for the purpose for which they were offered. See Commonwealth v. England, 474 Pa. 1, 13-14, 375 A.2d 1292, 1298-99 (1977); Commonwealth v. Wright, 455 Pa. 480, 486, 317 A.2d 271, 274 (1974). See also 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1790 (Chadbourn rev. 1976).
Appellee’s post-trial motions included a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove her sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. However, appellee failed to exercise her right to cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of that motion in arrest of judgment and did not address the issue in this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(5). The trial court did not discuss the issue in its opinion and neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth briefed or argued the issue here. Thus, in raising and deciding the sufficiency issue the dissent violates the sound rule against a court’s sua sponte raising issues not properly placed before it by the litigants. See Weigand v. Weigand, 461 Pa. 482, 337 A.2d 256 (1975). Following that rule we decline discussion of the sufficiency issue.
Because it granted a new trial based on its conclusion that appellee’s statements were involuntary, the trial court failed to consider defendant’s additional reasons for a new trial. Consequently, the order of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granting a new trial is vacated and the record is remanded to that Court for further consideration of the reasons advanced by appellee in support of her motion for a new trial, and disposition of that motion.
NIX, J., files a dissenting opinion in which ZAPPALA, J., joins.

. This Court has jurisdiction of this direct appeal from the judgment of sentence under section 2 of the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(1). Subsequent to appellant’s conviction the legislature amended the Judicial Code, omitting the provision for direct appeals from all final orders of the Court of Common Pleas involving felonious homicide. Act of September 23, 1980, P.L. 686, No. 137, effective November 23, 1980. This appeal was taken prior to the effective date of the amendment, which limits our jurisdiction on direct appeal to capital cases.

. Officer Branch testified that Officer Palma asked him if appellee was the mother and when he said yes, Officer Palma said, “the baby is dead.” Appellee, who overheard the conversation, shouted “Oh, my God, I didn’t mean to do it.” The suppression court accepted Officer Branch’s version while the trial court relied on Officer Pal-ma’s version. The discrepancy does not affect our result. See n. 6, infra.

. Officer Kuhar did not testify at trial and the Commonwealth did not introduce that statement at trial. Also, at about 11:35 A.M., in an effort to contact an attorney, appellee called a friend, Marguerita Clark. Police officers overheard her say she was in a trance and didn’t mean it. Likewise, the Commonwealth did not attempt to introduce that statement at trial.

. In fact, appellee does not contend her statement was elicited by any police conduct, improper or otherwise.

. The suppression judge noted that Dr. Cooke also testified that a month after the killing appellee was “spontaneous”, reasonably coherent, relevant and oriented as to time and place and person. At trial, in support of appellee’s insanity defense, Dr. Cooke testified that appellee believed she was “doing right” when she killed her daughter since she thought she was following God’s commands and making a sacrifice.

. Appellee does not contest the Commonwealth’s assertion her statements were “volunteered” in the sense that they were not elicited by interrogation or its functional equivalent. Interrogation must reflect a measure of compulsion above and beyond that inherent in custody itself. Interrogation is defined as express questioning and “words or actions that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) (footnotes omitted). Appellee does not contend nor did the trial court conclude that either Officer Palma’s or Officer Branch’s version of events in the Emergency Room was the functional equivalent of express questioning. Compare Rhode Island v. Innis, supra with Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977) and Commonwealth v. Simala, 434 Pa. 219, 252 A.2d 575 (1969). Moreover, asking general background questions such as name, address, age and occupation, marital status and religion does not constitute custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda. See Commonwealth v. DuVal, 453 Pa. 205, 307 A.2d 229 (1973).

. Because the suppression judge concluded that her statements were not in response to interrogation, he stopped short of concluding appellee was incapable of waiving her constitutional rights. He did *370conclude, however, that appellee knew what she was doing despite evidence of her history of hallucinations. While we need not resolve that question here, we note that a person with mental illness including a history of hallucinations and delusions may be capable of waiving her constitutional rights. See Commonwealth v. Tucker, 461 Pa. 191, 335 A.2d 704 (1975); Commonwealth v. Neely, 298 Pa.Super.Ct. 328, 444 A.2d 1199 (1982).

. Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 323(j) provides inter alia: “If the court determines that the evidence shall not be suppressed, such determination shall be final, conclusive and binding at trial, except upon a showing of evidence which was theretofore unavailable.... ”