*1 Appellant. Commonwealth v. Darden, *2 1970. Before C. May Bell, Jones, J., Argued JJ. Roberts and O’Brien, Cohen, Eagen, Pomeroy, for Richard O. Angino, appellant.
Jerome T. Foerster, Attorney, Assistant District 8. LeRoy Zimmerman, District Attorney, Commonwealth, appellee.
Opinion by Mr. Justice November 12, 1970: Eagen, on About 9:30 p.m. fol- Friday, February 9, 1968, a school basketball lowing high game of Har- city several broke out on the risburg, fights lot ad- parking between joining gymnasium groups black and In one of these boys. white Frank J. altercations, fifteen Jr., years white Ament, boy suffered age, wound, of the face contusions and head and a stab from back instrument.” “sharp pointed The last one of perforated mentioned wound the main arteries in the body, subclavian massive artery, resulting al- caused hemorrhaging right pleural cavity on most instant death. Ben born David Darden, Jr., June arrested and 18, 1952, charged with Ament’s murder. jury After tried before a indictment, he was murder This convicted of in the second degree. is from in the sentence appeal judgment imposed court. lower
At oral trial, admission and incriminating made recorded statement stenographically objection. were admitted in evidence over time This is error that at the assigned ground did not obtained, this evidence was Darden, allegedly intelligently” waive “voluntarily, knowingly due and hence its use violated rights, process. *3 record
A to evidence of the suppress motion pretrial An evidentiary hearing ed statement was filed.1' timely the of Jack in accordance with mandate conducted was and Ct. 1774 Denno, 84 S. (1964), son v. after Procedure, Rules Criminal Pennsylvania the was denied. the motion the at- Darden’s arrest and the background As to admission his incriminating circumstances tending the evidence at Commonwealth’s the statement, and as follows: was hearing suppression attended the basketball friends and several Darden half-time. left the gymnasium during and involved game to readmit- they sought return, 8:50 p.m., About in an main entrance, at the resulting refused tance and the the ticket takers. group between altercation the an- then at by gained group entrance was However, to the alerted above trouble, were The police gate. other pretrial apparently not aware of the evidence defense question admissibility admission, of its the did not and oral the trial. until arise fighting parking and when the on lot after started game, on the the conclusion several were officers quickly. very youths scene Three black observed were away, running ground Ament was found on fatally wounded. police
From to information were led received, injuries having believe Ament’s were been due by on the assaulted head a wine bottle wielded youth Douglas police named learned Sims. However, particular participant that Darden was also a in this fight, dispatched officers were to look for him. One of these officers but he was visited residence, not at home. The officer talked with Darden’s mother requested phone when he re- she turned. picked p.m., up by po-^
About 11:10 Darden was on lice the street near the Y.M.C.A. and was taken police headquarters. p.m., About 11:45 questioned City of the Po- lieutenant 9th, Department assigned charge lice the Youth Special Three Service Division. other officers, and an one of was a black district man, whom assistant present attorney time. at the Darden was with- questioning This continued until 1 a.m. out counsel. questioning Before the the lieutenant commenced, seeking he was information informed about gymnasium parking fight on the lot and the identi- youth ty who struck Ament with the wine bottle. *4 printed then read to Darden from a lieutenant card The required rights warning all of a his by 384 Arizona, 86 S. Ct. Miranda warning specific right After the each was you “Do was asked, Darden understand that?” read, pause until Darden was answered. In Then there reply “Yes.” every reading After the was, his instance completed, rights warning was of all Darden was again rights, again he if he and asked understood willing replied was the affirmative and said that questions. questioning that followed answer gymnasium follow- dealt the the with trouble outside ing game, with the main entrance that at as well as questioning during game. the ticket As the takers appeared progressed, in the one of the ticket takers briefly in- one of those room Darden as and identified gymnasium entrance to the volved the fracas at the following questioning officer half-time. Since injuries resulted sole- still under the belief that Ament’s questioning ly being from a wine bottle, struck with stabbing In fact or knives. such did not deal with a Ament that he hit mentioned. Darden denied were not identity knowledge with bottle and denied person who did. lodged Darden About a.m. on 10th, temporarily and a toilet contained bed, a cell which Douglas drinking In meantime, fountain. a water custody youths been taken into and other had Sims gym- being questioned trouble at about were headquarters. rooms at nasium various questioned other two About a.m. Darden Avas began, qiiestioning Dar- Before this detectives. warning again as dictated of his read a den was again supra, that he under- he said Miranda, questions. willing After this answer and was stood proceeded the detectives questioning minutes, for some time that ex- for the first informed involved clothing that he had indicated of Ament’s amination questioning then on this focused and the stabbed, been being fight in the admitted Avith aspect. then Darden using He said that one a knife. Ament fighting Ament and hit over the friends “smnging then it started bottle. awith head Avildly” “didn’t intend to cut him knife] [the *5 boy,” no- [Ament]” but then he cut the “somehow police blood on the knife. He also informed the ticed identity boy given of the to whom he had fight. employee knife after the of the A female district attorney’s stenographically office recorded typewritten given to and after it it was statement, was signed signa- he his Darden to read. About 3:45 a.m. page on ture each thereof.
Shortly to the Darden was transferred thereafter, During Detention in a car. Juvenile Center operator trip, in the course of a conversation with fight gym- in a at the vehicle, he said he had been boy. nasium stabbed Amerit’s charging Darden
A with murder warrant February day he on and the same issued 15, 1968, magistrate. preliminary arraigned before a The represented public hearing, defend- Darden 23rd. On 4th, followed March er’s office, appointed by the court. trial counsel was personally suppression hearing, Darden tes- At the whiskey consuming quantity substantial tified to game. during basketball He also de- before questioning in detail the circumstances scribed description thereof officers. His did not significantly vary from that of the Commonwealth wit- say period ques- except that the second he did nesses, during tioning the written ob- statement was “maybe Significantly, two hours.” consumed tained given deny warning that he was not did questioning began before the and, “Miranda” say he not significantly, did indicate that he more warning. He admitted understand that he did typewritten challenged statement to read signed that while and said he didn’t it, “read before any contain did not words that everything”, it he didn’t any anyone and he didn’t ask explain understand the words.2 clinical M. Cohen, of Dr. Leonard *6 tests psychological who had various
psychologist, given introduced. then to Darden at counsel’s was request, his came out Darden in these tests Dr. Cohen said that I.Q. of I.Q. a of a performance with verbal line a border I.Q. of him at a full scale 76, “classifying stated or a He also mildly retarded level.” would Darden age, terms test chronological to8 aged “from a chronologically range youngster 11% . . . .” [years] record to his poor mother testified
Darden’s re- while she that, also stated school. She progress a.m. about 5 from the police call ceived phone was being that her son her 10th, February informing she was per- Detention Center, held at the Juvenile 13th. until Wednesday, mitted to see him her own testimony manifested by it was However, due to her misunder- her son the delay seeing any rather than center, at the days visiting standing incom- to hold on the of the police effort part municado. introduced the then
The Commonwealth during opinion expressed who of a psychiatrist 9th on February of police questioning the period transcription beginning contained of the statement warnings statement Darden before the as the “Miranda” question. warning form of a in the couched Each made. right you you “Ben, constitutional example, have a understand For you lawyer Answer, “Ves, to be sir.” “If want a to remain silent?” you questions right during any these have time present or at now during questioning, do or before with to consult one have you Answer, “Ves.” “If can’t afford a law- you this?” understand longer you appoint and I be able will no one yer will the court you you one, consult you have time to do until talk with you understand this, this?” do understand mentally capable knowing Darden was 10th, what doing he was and was able to understand conse- quences of his statements. position, briefly is that evidence stated, oral admission and written statement have should suppressed
been and excluded at because at trial, time he relevant did not understand rights, effectively and hence them. could not waive This compelled argued, it is is a matter of conclusion, age, ability law because Darden’s his low mental plus ques- the adverse under which environment he was tioned absence friend counsel. We cannot agree. unquestionably
It is correct that unless Darden was po of all of aware his constitutional before the questioning began, challenged lice which induced the *7 incriminating evidentiary thereof con evidence, use stitutionally proscribed. supra. Miranda v. Arizona, determining rights, inAnd if Darden was aware of his judged by exacting he cannot be the more standards maturity. very study after a However, careful of all including of the circumstances disclosed record, testimony, suppression Darden’s own both at the hear ing and at we conclude trial,3 that the court com below mitted neither abuse of discretion nor an error of finding required knowledge that the law and under standing ruling weight, any, existed and in that what if should be to the evidence involved jury. Joyner Brierley, ex Cf. Commonwealth rel. v. (1968).4 2d 434 429 Pa. 239 A. 156, 3 reading A own leaves little doubt but ability to he had the understand even under adverse circum- observing court, hearing after The trial stances. and his testi- “remarkably alert, responsive.” mony, him as aware described and 4 Holman, also, 478, v. Boulden 394 U.S. See S. 89 Ct. 1138 ex rel. Myers, Brown v. Commonwealth (1969), 25, 433 Pa. 249 A. 2d 337
49 S. Ct. 596, 332 U.S. Ohio, v. Haley In our view, Colorado, and Gallegos (1948), there Admittedly, control. do not 1209 (1962), S. Ct. lends comfort in these decisions which is language consid- must be this language but Darden’s position, presented facts the light ered in context and in these cases. decided prior were both
Haley Gallegos, supra, in neither required, while supra, and, to Miranda, of his constitutional informed the accused case either evidence that an iota Nor was there rights. an important This is these rights. one was aware Moreover, case. in the present feature distinguishing interrogated accused was fifteen-year-old Haley hours for five solid officers the police constantly by one and at was obtained, confession the excluded before one questioners group during period, point team. Addi- a fresh replaced by were tired, they grew been beaten had Haley evidence there was tionally, taken when he was first mistreated herein. suggested a fact nowhere custody, into confession was the challenged supra, In Gallegos, accused had been held after the until not obtained which time he days, during for five detention security police. Also, during members one but no saw repeated made efforts mother Gallegos’ time, fin's denied. It is patently requests her but him, see are not this case. Gallegos Haley clear lieutenant testimony, trial During *8 in on police headquarters Darden questioned first who asked the was dis- 9, 1968, by of night noticed unusual about anything he if attorney trict or condition at the time. appearance physical Darden’s unusual.” He was then nothing “No, responded, He to know Darden occasion previously, had he if asked Ben work through “I known have my replied, 50 in two to this. has been
approximately He years prior . my office . . 6 to 8 different occasions.” approximately Another in who also been officer, pres- had ence of Darden taken was into custody February 9th, asked about appearance and apparent condition at the time. physical pertinent Further then inquiry brought response work this officer had of learned on the being street after the of hour a.m. four 12:80 at times least to the prior occasion officer involved, and the had talked with about it.
It is maintained that was a de type inquiry liberate to create in the attempt jurors minds of the that Darden impression boy” “bad criminal prior record, unduly prejudicial at least a technical violation of 19 Section of The Juvenile Court Act of Act, June P. 2, L. 1933, 1433, P.S. §261.5
No extended discussion is needed to show that inquiries now asserted as error did violate the Act of Nor 1933, are supra. we persuaded that the situation be present may equated with that pre- sented Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 413 Pa. A. 2d (1964), wherein we condemned questioning which was for the primarily purpose calling attention to jury’s misconduct prior of the accused. Herein, view Darden’s at testimony, both the sup- at pression as to hearing trial, his drinking intoxi- cants before the and before stabbing making provides: 1933, supra, Act Section 19 “No order by any operate juvenile impose any court shall made of the civil ordinarily imposed disabilities the criminal laws of the Common- any wealth, shall child be deemed to nor be a criminal reason any deemed to order or be have such been' convicted of crime. any disposition juvenile child evidence in a court against evidence admissible any not be child in shall case, or any other court.” proceeding
51 physical incriminating men statement, important became tal condition times involved at the Ct. 360 U.S. 79 S. York, 315, fact. v. New Spano challenged testimony (1959). relevant 1202 The ability to Dar to of officers evaluate establish the night to 9th and condition on the of den’s weight there at that time lend to their nothing apparent Cf. in his condition. unusual Myers, 2d 756 Commonwealth v. Pa. 266 A. 381, 439 (1970). requiring only assignment remaining of error
The
peremptory
chal
the exercise
discussion concerns
jurors
lenges
by
prospective
the Commonwealth.
by
urged
systematic
is
there was a
effort
It
jurors
attorney
race.
exclude
because
their
district
The
the Com
are unconvinced.
record shows that
We
twenty pe
permissible
of a
monwealth exercised seven
challenges
remptory challenges.
were
Four of these
people
race
no one of this
utilized to excuse black
jury.6
ultimate trial
as a member
was seated
jurors
process
due
exclude
It is violation
Georgia,
545,
of their race.
U.S.
reason
Whitus v.
385
(1967),
and Pierre v.
Louisiana,
87 S. Ct.
proving
burden of
existence prima if a facie estab case is however, asserts it; who prosecution. shifts to the then the burden Whitus lished, persuaded prima supra. are Georgia, not facie We was established. racial discrimination case Judgment affirmed. complain any panel racial imbalance in the does proportions does not disclose the jurors, the record racial any people the record disclose if does therein. Nor black
included cause. It is also to be and excused noted that called peremptory challenge,, exercised a no ob- Commonwealth only jury It was after entered. entire then had jection was following extended voir dire that accepted it asserted been practiced. been had discrimination racial
Dissenting Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts :
I. *10 boy I first do not believe without could, seeing being given by or and advice some adult friend voluntarily agree to counsel, waive his rights response warnings. in to the Miranda constitutionally single litmus-paper
“No test for impermissible interrogation has been evolved: neither cross-questioning—deprecated by English extensive judges; arraignment—proscribed by delay nor undue in by prisoner—enjoined nor failure to caution a McNabb; Judges’ permit rules ;* nor refusal to communication legal proceed stages and counsel friends at ing prisoner only suspect—prohibit when the is still a by ed [Citations state several statutes. omitted] company
“Each of these with all the sur- factors, rounding circumstances—the duration and conditions (if detained), of the detention. the confessor has been manifest attitude toward his him, physical pressures and mental state, diverse which sap powers or sustain or resistance self-control— [Footnote is omitted] relevant. The ultimate re- test only clearly mains that which has been established Anglo-American years— test courts for two hundred product test of voluntariness. Is the confession the essentially of an free by and unconstrained choice its maker? If it if he may is, has willed to be it confess, against him. If if used it is not, his will has been over- capacity borne critically and his self-determination impaired, the use his confession process. offends due The line of omitted] [Citation distinction is at governing self-direction compulsion, is lost and * “cautioning” now, required course, Is A form of Miranda. helps propels nature or whatever however infused, propel Connecticut, the confession.” Culombe v. 1878-79 568, 601-02, S. Ct. 1860, given The confession the instant case was possessed year youth I.Q. of and fifteen old an who years, age eight after mental one half to eleven custody four half after two and one hours questioning. hours The defendant did receive respond required warnings before did to the Miranda interrogation. easy am. I but case, This is not compelled make to conclude that this defendant did not intelligent knowing of his constitutional waiver validity of his confes- sufficient to sustain fact I little comfort from the that the Mi- sion. take given. warnings I that this do not believe randa knowledge capable, truly even defendant was *11 warnings making having gained by of the recited, heard prerequisite a of rational choice which is free and a valid confession. easy child—an of mere victim a here,
“[W]hen,
scrutinizing
special care
us,
the law—is before
Age
a
diffi-
fifteen is
tender and
be used.
record must
judged
any
boy
be
age
He can not
for
of
race.
cult
maturity.
exacting
of
That
standards
the more
unimpressed can
a man cold
would leave
which
early
.
a lad in his
teens. . .
and overwhelm
overawe
boy
of
con-
this
was advised
his
that
are told
“[W]e
signed
he
the confession and
before
stitutional
knowing
nevertheless
That
confessed.
them,
that,
boy
aid
15,
of without
of coun-
that
however,
assumes,
appreciation of
full
that advice and
have
would
sel,
record he had a
freedom of
of
facts
indulge
assumptions.
those
[W]e
cannot
We
choice.
merely
weight
any
recitals which
formal-
give
cannot
respect
requirements.
Formulas
ize
prevail
safeguards
over
cannot
for constitutional
may
They
be-
them.
contradict
facts
life which
an
practices
make
inquisitorial
come a cloak for
free
empty
process
law
form the due
Haley
fought
Ohio,
men
v.
and died
obtain.”
(1948).
303-04
68 S. Ct.
Simi-
596, 599, 601,
302,
larly,
indulge
assumption
I
fifteen
cannot
that a
year
boy
greatly impaired
ability
old
could,
mental
any
without the
of counsel or
Com-
aid
adult friend,
monwealth v.
440 Pa.
“The that the was advised of right to but that counsel, he did not ask either lawyer parents. for a for But a year fourteen *12 boy, sophisticated, old no matter how is unlikely to any conception of have what bim will confront police. only he is made accessible to the That say, is to person equal deal with who is we not to the knowledge understanding of consequences the of questions being and answers recorded, and who is protect to know how to unable own interests or how get rights. the benefits of his to constitutional “The imma prosecution says that youth of are ir and the detention turity petitioner day because the of the confession relevant, basic ingredients But if came out as soon as he was arrested. tumbling we took that it all be would, with position, deference, in callous constitutional disregard boy’s rights. this He full possession cannot be adult in compared consequences his senses knowledgeable no his admissions. He have way knowing would what of his confession without consequences his rights— n from to someone concerned with advice as him of more those without the aid securing rights—and in the to the he should take steps mature as judgment lawyer he found himself. A which predicament or friend could have peti an adult relative could own immaturity tioner the protection un on a less would have him not. Adult advice put Without some interrogators. with his equal footing 14a old year this inequality, adult protection against such be to let alone know, assert, able would boy convic had. To this as he allow if be to treat as effect, stand would, tion to 370 U.S. at S. rights.” 54-55, no constitutional had In added). Carlo, See also re 1212-13 (emphasis atCt. . doubt . it seems (“. 2d 110 (1966) 225 A. N.J. mental . . capacity, par . had boys these ful that to a police station, ap in the environment ticularly and the consequences of their rights extent preciate third?: We do not exercise them. of a failure be should given signifi admonitions these of voluntariness.”); our determination weight cant 512 Reptr. 63 Cal. Medina, re In from case is cut the same this evident seems It it and that cannot be Gallegos, Haley cloth capable deciding defendant said and to confess the crime counsel advice waive *13 56 receiving guidance
without first advice and from some friendly adult either counsel or an source, adult friend. attempt
I any specified age, do not to delineate I.Q. or combination which a thereof, below confession automatically involuntary will though be found even warnings given. prefer the Miranda have been I approach that takes into account all the circumstances surrounding youth’s alleged and examines waiver, those circumstances for evidence of voluntariness. Here, protection deserves more than that cold warnings. recitation of the Miranda
II. portion I must also from dissent ma- jority’s opinion approves of the numerous testi- juvenile prior monial to references con- defendant’s were tacts which solicited from Commonwealth prosecution certain witnesses. The Commonwealth as- questions serts that these were not, as defendant attempt claims, deliberate show that the defend- boy,” designed ant was a “bad but were demonstrate regard men that the these the de- night including condition on fendant’s his arrest, question sobriety, defendant’s relative took added validity they from the fact that could assess the de- perspective having condition from the fendant’s fairly agree I well. known While that the testi- arguably mony relevant this I reason, cannot sufficiently important its use was believe to coun- policy against strong our terbalance introduction concerning prior unrelated crimes. evidence As we past, in the such clear evidence made is have inherent- generally ly prejudicial and inadmissible. Common- (1955) Pa. 110 A. Burdell, 43, 2d 193 v. wealth ; Williams, 307 Pa. Atl. Commonwealth my opinion general (1932). And it is rule even tbe criminal inadmissibility is stronger prior contacts tbe juvenile specific view of offenses *14 ju- of tbe use statutory subsequent proscription Act P. L. venile record. of June P.S. 2, 1933, im- I cannot conclude that tbe relatively slight §261. all sufficient over- tbis was at portance come tbe its exclusion. strong policy favoring I dissent.
Accordingly, I of Mr. Part tbis dissent. joins Justice Jones Hornberger, Appellant. wealth Common