Court Opinion

ID: 9617047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:51:29.634389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:05.017838
License: Public Domain

Justice EXUM
dissenting.
The majority sees the issue with respect to the admissibility of defendant’s pre-trial statement as being whether a defendant must be informed of the charge under investigation before he can make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and his right to remain silent, recognizing that only a knowing and intelligent waiver will suffice under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), as a prerequisite to the statement’s admissibility. Concluding that no such information is required by Miranda or any other authority, the majority finds here that defendant did make the required waivers and holds his statement admissible.
To me the issue presented by these facts is whether an intelligent and knowing waiver can be made when the suspect sought to be questioned is misled by police officers to believe that the crime under investigation is different from and much less serious than the crime which is in fact being investigated. The answer to this issue must surely be “No.”
Here on voir dire investigator Simmons testified unequivocally that he “was interviewing [defendant] in relation to a homicide, the murder of Miss Irene Alley of Stewart Drive.” Simmons then testified as follows:
“Q. Did you tell him what you wanted to talk to him about?
A. Yes, I asked him did he know why he was there.
Q. And what did he respond?
A. He stated that it was with reference to a possible break-in.”
Earlier investigative supervisor Sarvis had testified on voir dire:
“Right at the beginning after I entered the room we explained to Mr. Carter why he was there, what had happened on Stewart Drive. We told him there had been a homicide and a possible break-in. I am fairly certain that I said homicide and a break-in. But I am not really sure. I do not recall whether the word homicide had been mentioned before *355that or not. I was not present when the statement was taken by Detective Simmons.”
Defendant on voir dire testified that the investigators told him “they were investigating a break-in that had happened over the weekend” and that he, defendant, told Simmons “that they told me when they picked me up that it was for a possible break-in that happened over the weekend.” After this conversation between Simmons and defendant, Simmons advised defendant of his rights and took his written waiver. On this voir dire evidence the trial court found as facts:
“That at police headquarters Mr. Simmons questioned the defendant and asked.if he knew why he was there and that he responded that he understood it was in relation to possible breaking and enterings. . . . That at the time of the execution of the waiver the defendant had not been informed that the investigation included a homicide but had been informed that the investigation related to breakings and enter-ings.”
Practically all the evidence in the record supports these findings.
Thus defendant at the time he made his written waiver was led by the officers to believe that they wanted to question him with regard to a breaking when, in fact, they were investigating a homicide. The statement he made exculpates him from any involvement in a breaking but implicates him in a homicide.
I am unwilling to say under these circumstances that defendant made knowing and intelligent waivers when he signed the waiver form. It is understandable why he would have no hesitancy to respond to questions about a possible breaking nor feel the need for counsel if this was the purpose of the inquiry. Not only was he clearly innocent of such an offense, but also it is a felony which carries a maximum punishment of 10 years imprisonment. First degree murder, on the other hand, is punishable by death and, in this case, defendant had knowledge of facts which seriously implicated him in such a crime. Whether defendant was entitled to be informed of the murder investigation before he could make valid waivers is a question upon which courts, as noted in the majority opinion, are divided. Clearly, however, he could not make valid waivers when the investigators had misled him to *356believe (1) that the matter to which his waivers would pertain was far less serious than in fact it was and (2) that it was a matter in which he was not at all implicated when in fact it was a matter in which he was seriously involved. In this case the misinformation given defendant by the investigators precluded him from making valid waivers at least until he was correctly informed of the true reason for his interrogation.
The majority relies in part on the fact that defendant was aware that the investigation concerned a homicide “before he made the incriminating statement. Yet, he willingly continued to answer the questions put to him.” The majority, however, does not, nor could it under our cases, hold that by merely making statements in response to questions at that point in the interrogation defendant waived his right to counsel. This Court has consistently held “that a defendant’s waiver of counsel must be ‘specifically made.’ In other words, there must be some positive indication by the defendant that he does not wish to have an attorney present during the questioning.” State v. Silhan, 295 N.C. 636, 639, 247 S.E. 2d 902, 904 (1978). (Emphasis original.) “Failure to request counsel is not synonymous with waiver. Nor is silence.” State v. Butler, 295 N.C. 250, 255, 244 S.E. 2d 410, 413 (1978). The United States Supreme Court said in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 470, 475:
“No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings we here delineate have been given.
But a valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.”
Since defendant could not have made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights when he signed the written form and did not make a waiver of counsel during the interrogation itself I conclude that his pre-trial statement was not admissible. For this reason I vote for a new trial.