Court Opinion

ID: 9793348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:46:17.431304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:34.594329
License: Public Domain

VAN CISE, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The trial court correctly refused to suppress the witness Kirk Martin’s statements to the police, his trial testimony, and the tape-recorded conversation with defendant Briggs.
Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974) is dispositive here. See also United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268, 98 S.Ct. 1054, 55 L.Ed.2d 268 (1978). In Tucker, in the course of police interrogation while he was under arrest and in custody on a charge of rape, defendant Tucker furnished the name of an alibi witness previously unknown to the police. The witness’ later statements discredited Tucker’s account as to where he spent the night of the crime. Because he had not been advised of his right to appointed counsel, Tucker’s own statements were excluded by the trial court, but the testimony of the *964witness was not excluded. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s action.
In the instant case, different from Tucker, Martin was not a witness discovered as a result, and his testimony was not a “fruit,” of Briggs’ January 1980 statements. Martin’s identity and his probable involvement in the burglary and subsequent murder became known to the police in December 1979 at the same time they learned about Briggs. Three times in December, Martin and Briggs were questioned concerning their relationship with the deceased Dewey. At that time, Martin admitted having a camera that had belonged to Dewey. It is reasonable to assume that the testimony ultimately elicited from Martin would have been obtained in any event in the normal course of police investigation. See People v. Lee, 630 P.2d 583 (Colo.1981).
In December, in statements he concedes were voluntary, Briggs admitted that he knew about the burglary and had helped Dewey move some of the stolen items to Briggs’ residence. Prior to these admissions, Briggs had been given full Miranda warnings and had been advised that he was suspected of being involved in the burglary, in theft by receiving, and in the Dewey murder. In his January statements, in which he confessed to the burglary after being offered immunity from prosecution therefor, Briggs told the police about Martin’s having taken some of the stolen items to sell in Indiana. But, as found by the trial court, this dealt only with the burglary; everything thereafter was obtained from further interrogation of Martin. And, it was from the Martin interrogations, the leads therefrom, and Martin’s cooperation that further evidence was obtained about the Dewey murder and Briggs having been the killer.
Although Briggs had been advised back in December that he was a murder suspect and had been given full Miranda warnings at that time, and prior to his January statements he had been promised immunity from prosecution for burglary (which promise was kept), Briggs’ own January statements concerning the burglary were excluded at his trial for murder. Whatever the validity of that ruling, there was and is no persuasive reason here for excluding Martin’s testimony, much less for reversing the conviction because the testimony was admitted.
“Before we penalize police error ... we must consider whether the sanction serves a valid and useful purpose.” Tucker, supra. Whatever deterrent influence on future police conduct the exclusion of Briggs’ statements might have, it would not be significantly augmented by excluding the testimony of Martin as well. Tucker, supra. Further, there was no reason to believe that Martin’s testimony was untrustworthy simply because Briggs had not been readvised of his rights; Martin’s reliability was subject to the normal testing process of the adversary trial. Tucker, supra.
I agree with Justice White’s statement in his concurring opinion in Tucker, supra, and this should be the rule of the instant case:
“Miranda having been applied in this Court only to the exclusion of the defendant’s own statements, I would not extend its prophylactic scope to bar the testimony of third persons even though they have been identified by means of admissions that are themselves inadmissible under Miranda. The arguable benefits from excluding such testimony by way of possibly deterring police conduct that might compel admissions are, in my view, far outweighed by the advantages of having relevant and probative testimony, not obtained by actual coercion, available at criminal trials to aid in the pursuit of truth.”
Since Briggs’ other contentions on this appeal are without merit, I would affirm the judgment of conviction.