Court Opinion

ID: 9673414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:11:20.849188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.056182
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice,
dissenting.
The crux of this appeal is whether the confession of Marshall Donald Murphy was obtained in violation of his privilege against compelled self-incrimination under article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. We decided State v. Murphy on the basis of federal constitutional law, holding that any failure on Murphy’s part to claim the privilege against self-incrimination when he was questioned by his probation officer without Miranda warnings did not bar his later reliance on the privilege when he sought suppression of his confession. 324 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn.1982). We recognized, as had the Supreme Court of Ohio, that the heavy psychological pressure on released offenders to answer inquiries made by their supervising officers is sufficient to render the interrogation inherently coercive. Id. at 343 (citing State v. Gallagher, 38 Ohio St.2d 291, 313 N.E.2d 396, 400 (1974), cert. granted, 420 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 1445, 43 L.Ed.2d 761, remanded, 425 U.S. 257, 96 S.Ct. 1438, 47 L.Ed.2d 722, on remand, 46 Ohio St.2d 225, 348 N.E.2d 336 (1976)). We relied on the facts that the meeting with the probation officer was compulsory, that Murphy was under court order to respond truthfully to his probation officer’s questions, and that the officer had substantial reason to believe Murphy’s answers would be incriminating. 324 N.W.2d at 344. The United States Supreme Court, reversing our decision, concluded “since Murphy revealed incriminating information instead of timely asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations” under the United States Constitution and could be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1149, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984). After remand by this court and before trial began, Murphy timely moved to suppress his statements to his probation officer on the basis that they were obtained in violation of article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution.
Today the majority holds that, the federal and staue compelled self-incrimination constitutional provisions being identical, and nothing in the philosophy of the Minnesota criminal justice system with regard to the unique relationship between probationer and probation officer requiring a contrary result, “the interpretation given by the United States Supreme Court of the privilege against self-incrimination under the federal constitutional provision is also a correct statement of the law under article 1, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution.” Majority, at 771. I must respectfully disagree. Our own prior cases interpreting article I, section 7 do not support either the substance or breadth of such a holding.
I.
The majority opinion, quoting State v. Fuller, 374 N.W.2d 722 (Minn.1985), recognizes this court is the final authority on the interpretation and enforcement of our state constitution. Though we have on occasion found the views of the United States Supreme Court persuasive, we are not obliged to adopt the United States Supreme Court’s construction of a federal constitutional provision in interpreting our own constitution even if the language of a state constitutional privilege is identical. See State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673, 674-75 (S.Dak.1976). Commentators Fleming and Nordby have noted that “[identical meaning should not be implied merely because there is identical language.” Fleming & Nordby, The Minnesota Bill of Rights: ‘‘Wrapt in the Old Miasmal Mist, ” 7 Ham.L.Rev. 51, 68 (1984). They quote Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court:
*774It is a fiction too long accepted that provisions in state constitutions textually identical to the Bill of Rights were intended to mirror their federal counterpart. The lesson of history is otherwise: the Bill of Rights was based upon the corresponding provisions of the first state constitutions, rather than the reverse.
Id. at 68-69 (quoting People v. Brisendine, 13 Cal.3d 528, 550, 119 Cal.Rptr. 315, 329, 531 P.2d 1099, 1113, (1975)). Those first state constitutions, and article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, embody our abiding belief as a people that the state cannot be permitted to obtain a criminal conviction by words compelled from the mouth of the accused. “This guaranty,” we have said, “courts should zealously guard.” State v. Rixon, 180 Minn. 573, 576, 231 N.W. 217, 218 (1930). Long before “taking the Fifth” became a familiar household phrase, this court was interpreting article I, section 7 of Minnesota’s constitution, in the context of whether a criminal indictment must be quashed because it was based on testimony of the accused obtained in a grand jury proceeding, without reference to the fifth amendment of the federal constitution. In 1871 this court set aside an indictment against a defendant subpoened by a grand jury and examined as a witness as to a criminal charge against him. We held an indictment obtained in these circumstances violated the state constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination. State v. Froiseth, 16 Minn. 296 (Gil. 260) (1871).1 Not until 1892 did the United States Supreme Court hold the federal constitution provided protection against self-incrimination to grand jury witnesses. Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S.Ct. 195, 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892).
Similarly, Minnesota’s law on waiver of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination developed independently of federal constitutional interpretation. The state constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination is absolute when claimed, but may be waived. See State v. Falcone, 292 Minn. 365, 195 N.W.2d 572 (1972); State v. Ioseu, 220 Minn. 283, 19 N.W.2d 735 (1945). This privilege may be waived orally, in writing, or by conduct. State v. Berry, 298 Minn. 181, 184, 214 N.W.2d 232, 234 (1974).2 A waiver is effective, however, only if found to have been made voluntarily and with a clear understanding of the possible consequences. Id. It must be made “in a frame of mind wholly ‘free from any sense of compulsion.’ ” Iosue, 220 Minn. at 296, 19 N.W.2d at 741. Involuntariness, which prevents effective waiver in this state, may result from physical compulsion, e.g. fear for personal safety or mental compulsion, as where a potential defendant is mistaken in believing he or she has been assured of immunity for testifying before the grand jury. Berry, 298 Minn. at 186, 214 N.W.2d at 235; see also State v. Gardiner, 88 Minn. 130, 92 N.W. 529.3 Where an accused is compelled to *775testify, the testimony may not be used against him or her in a criminal procedure unless this knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver is affirmatively shown.
In contrast, the line of decisions of the United States Supreme Court on loss of the federal constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination stands for the proposition that if a witness under compulsion to testify makes an incriminating disclosure instead of claiming the privilege, the government is viewed as not having “compelled” the incrimination. Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 654-55, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1182-83, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976) (discussing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 7-10, 90 S.Ct. 763, 767-69, 25 L.Ed.2d 1 (1970)). Lack of compulsion to speak is presumed under federal constitutional law. “[I]f [a witness] chooses to answer, his choice is considered to be voluntary since he was free to claim the privilege * * Minnesota v. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. at 1143. Because failure to claim the privilege is considered sufficient in the ordinary case to prove no compulsion, no knowing or intelligent waiver of the privilege need be shown. “Our cases do not reflect an uncritical demand for a knowing and intelligent waiver in every situation where a person has failed to invoke a constitutional protection.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 235, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2052, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Only where circumstances can be shown which “impermissibly foreclose a free choice to remain silent” is a witness’ failure to claim the privilege excused when he or she later wants to prevent the use of incriminating statements in a criminal prosecution. Minnesota v. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. at 1143.4
These different approaches — whether lack of compulsion is presumed, as under the federal constitution, or must be affirmatively shown, as under this state’s constitution — are also reflected in different Minnesota and federal rules as to the warnings of constitutional rights that must be given witnesses before a grand jury. In Minnesota, if a grand jury witness is a potential defendant, the prosecutor must advise the witness prior to questioning that he or she may be implicated by the testimony and should seek legal advice concerning constitutional rights. Falcone, 292 Minn. at 373, 195 N.W.2d at 577. Incriminating grand jury testimony may be used by the prosecution in a later criminal trial only where the trial court finds the defendant was warned before testifying to the grand jury and voluntarily waived immunity knowing that the testimony might lead to indictment and be admissible at a subsequent criminal trial. Id. at 373, 195 N.W.2d at 578. By contrast, in United States v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court stated that a grand jury witness who is a potential defendant need not be warned before testifying that indictment and criminal conviction could result from incriminating testimony. 431 U.S. 181, 186, 189, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1818, 1819-20, 52 L.Ed.2d 238 (1977). Nor need it be shown that a grand jury witness knowingly *776waived the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. Garner, 424 U.S. at 654 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. at 1182 n. 9. Under the federal constitution, the only test is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the free will of the witness can be shown to have been overborne. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S.Ct. 735, 741, 5 L.Ed.2d 760 (1961). In summary, under the federal law, compulsion must be affirmatively proved while under Minnesota law, it is voluntariness that must be affirmatively shown.
II.
This case, involving Murphy’s interrogation by his probation officer and the use of incriminating statements obtained therefrom as the basis of his criminal indictment and conviction, is analogous to our cases involving interrogations of grand jury witnesses and the use of incriminating statements obtained therefrom as the basis of criminal indictments against those witnesses. It is analogous to Rixon, where a transcription of an interrogation under subpoena of accused arsonists by state fire marshall’s deputies was submitted to and used by a grand jury to obtain their criminal indictment. 180 Minn. 573, 231 N.W. 217. Murphy was compelled by an order of the district court to meet with his probation officer when and where she summoned him. His probation officer was an official representative of the court. She had advised him, by letter of July 14, 1981, that his failure to contact her and set up an appointment as requested would result in an immediate order for his arrest and a probation revocation hearing. Like those accused witnesses in Froiseth, Gardiner, and Rixon, who were compelled by oath to tell the truth, Murphy was under court order to answer all of his probation officer’s questions truthfully. In this setting, a required meeting with his probation officer in her office at which she unexpectedly and without a warning of his rights confronted him with questions regarding his commission of a murder, it is clear Murphy could have claimed the privilege against compelled incrimination under either the federal or the state constitution. See Minnesota v. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. at 1143, 1148; Rixon, 180 Minn. at 575, 231 N.W. at 217-18. He did not claim the privilege by refusing to answer the probation officer’s questions but instead responded, truthfully we presume, as required by his probation order. Under these circumstances, were his incriminating statements compelled for purposes of article 1, section 7?
Under federal constitutional law Murphy lost his fifth amendment privilege by failing to assert it and the United States Supreme Court has found that the circumstances were not such as to overbear his free will, thereby excusing his failure to assert the privilege. Under Minnesota law, however, with or without a warning,5 the State must prove that Murphy waived his article 1, section 7 privilege against compelled self-incrimination voluntarily, with a clear understanding of the possible consequences and in a frame of mind wholly free from any sense of compulsion. Berry, 298 Minn. at 184-85, 214 N.W.2d at 234; Iosue, 220 Minn. at 295-96, 19 N.W.2d at 741. Murphy testified that he did not feel free to leave the meeting when confronted because that would have violated the conditions of his probation order. He testified that he did not know he had a right to refuse to answer the probation officer’s questions or to consult an attorney before answering them. He testified that because his probation officer put the entire conversation in the context of what a future treatment plan for him should be, it did not occur to him that she would go to the police with what he said. He stated further that he had had two probation officers before her and neither had ever gone to the police with anything he said. The credibility of this testimony is strengthened by the fail*777ure of the probation officer to advise Murphy of his rights against compelled incrimination before she conducted the interrogation. A knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver cannot be presumed and has not been affirmatively shown in this case. Murphy’s statements are compelled incrimi-nations under article 1, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution and cannot serve as the basis of his criminal conviction. A reversal on this ground is required and the case remanded for a new trial.

. In State v. Gardiner, we made clear that the state constitutional guarantee against compelled incrimination “must receive a liberal construction, to the end that personal rights may be protected." 88 Minn. 130, 139, 92 N.W. 529, 533 (1902). Furthermore, that constitutional guarantee "not only protects a person from being compelled to give direct evidence tending to establish his guilt, but also from giving any circumstance or- link in the chain of evidence which may tend to convict him of a crime.” Id. By 1930 we considered it "settled law" in the state that "where a grand jury by subpoena compels the accused to attend and testify concerning his connection with the crime under investigation, an indictment returned by such jury against such accused will be quashed, because in violation of our constitutional guaranty that no person ‘shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ (article I, § 7)." Rixon, 180 Minn. at 575, 231 N.W. at 218. (citations omitted). In Rixon, the defendants had been required by subpoena to appear before deputies of the State Fire Marshall and answer questions implicating them in arson. This court quashed an indictment based on a transcription of that interrogation that had been given to the grand jury.

. Whether a waiver has been made is a factual determination. Berry, 298 Minn. at 184, 214 N.W.2d at 234.

. It is not necessary that the defendant has been intentionally misled to induce a waiver, as appears to have been the case in Gardiner, to be found to have acted involuntarily and thus, under Minnesota law, to be unable to make an *775effective waiver of the right not to be compelled to self-incriminate. Berry, 298 Minn. at 186, 214 N.W.2d at 235. We have made clear, however, that a prosecutor may not use devious means to obtain a waiver of immunity from the potential defendant for grand jury testimony which the prosecutor later offers as evidence against the accused at a criminal trial. Falcone, 292 Minn. at 373, 195 N.W.2d at 577. In Murphy’s case the probation officer, in questioning him about the murder, told him her sole purpose for the interrogation was to determine his further need for treatment, though she had previously decided with her supervisor that she would go to the police with any information she obtained. This conduct, while proper for probationary purposes, has different legal implications with regard to the issue of whether Murphy knowingly and voluntarily waived the right not to incriminate himself in a new criminal charge.

. The United States Supreme Court has identified certain well-defined situations in which some identifiable factor was held to deny the individual a " 'free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer.’” Minnesota v. Murphy, 104 S.Ct. at 1143 (quoting Lisenha v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 241, 62 S.Ct. 280, 292, 86 L.Ed. 166 (1941)). These include inherently coercive settings, e.g. custodial interrogation as in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1624, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), or where assertion of the privilege is penalized, as in Gamer, 424 U.S. at 661, 96 S.Ct. at 1186.

. Before being interrogated by the fire mar-shall's deputies, the accused in Rixon were warned that incriminating questions need not be answered. 180 Minn, at 575, 231 N.W. at 217. Even though they were warned, criminal indictments based on incriminating testimony of the accused were quashed as having been compelled. Id.