Commonwealth v. Gibbs
553 A.2d 409
Pa.
1989
Check Treatment

*1 151 tion.1 Thus the unstated of this reversal result Court’s is to signal of petitions bar this Commonwealth that may modification orders entertained at custody any time regard without there materi- have been al changes I am which warrant reevaluation. unsettling impact today’s confident the decision will soon become evident. A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellee,

COMMONWEALTH of GIBBS, Barry Appellant. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of Reargued Sept. 1988. Decided Feb. 1989. Reargument April Denied 1989. majority’s response disagreement 1. If the to their due with the Superior record Court’s conclusion that the did not establish a “sub- entertaining change petition, stantial circumstances” to warrant majority’s position I concede there could in the be merit on that case, appropriate response issue. In such have been Superior reverse that and remand matter Court to review court’s the lower order as best interests the child. *2 Honesdale, Gibbs, I.P.P., Ronald M. for Bugaj, Barry appellant. Weinstein, Matamoras,

Michael E. appellee. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY, Before and McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, STOUT, PAPADAKOS and JJ. THE

OPINION OF COURT PAPADAKOS, Justice. imposition

This case of a death sentence. involves alleges The seventeen errors We con- Appellant below. right clude on one issue that his Arizona, Miranda v. pursuant warnings required by (1966) its 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 694 and and progeny impaired by subsequent his into For improperly statements were admitted evidence. reason, following this order a new trial automatic review 9711(h), (i). to 42 Pa.C.S. pursuant Court § shooting in the death of a securi- Appellant was convicted guilt stage of the trial demon- ty guard. Evidence kill Appellant had hired her strated a co-defendant however, resulted shooting, actually husband. guard Appellant death of co-worker for which several following others were arrested two later. The testi- days relevant to this the State Police mony opinion of the Trooper describing administering Miranda warn- ings:

Q. happened O.K. Can continue? tell us what you Just when first started the you interview.

A. O.K. I read the Miranda to him. He indicated particular point that he understood. At that statement, then asked or he made the I should “Maybe talk to a it do me to tell good you?” What would him, I responded “I don’t by telling really know what good it would do. The is I tell the only thing District Attorney you cooperated for whatever be, help but would have no idea whether would your case or not.”

THE I might COURT: note that the last statement of the witness done from the reading paper. was without A. I don’t understand. really BY MR. GUCCINI:

Q. O.K. Continue. A. him Corporal Hague O.K. Then also told that this him, there, up was to and that he he strictly was knew what and he the one that not happened, was he had family, and to make the decision himself on what All right. referring he should do. And paper, the at signed (Reproduced pp. waiver 12:05. Record at 333-334.)

Our decision focuses on the issue of narrowly Trooper’s response only thing the that “the is would tell the District Attorney you cooperated for whatever misleading that would be” constituted an impermissible Appellant pursue inducement not to further his ambiguous equivocal regarding and inquiry presence an recent in attorney. opinion Our Commonwealth v. Hubble, 497, (1986), Larsen, J., (per 509 Pa. concurring, concurring spe- with two Justices one Justice 154 and

dally, concurring part), provides one Justice in disposition basis of our of this case. Hubble,

In the Appellee voluntarily and his wife went to where the State Police Barracks rights time, At police. suggested that the wife to her he get lawyer, following Appellee husband that which the “I police, stated to the and “I want a lawyer,” public want defender.” The police thereupon encouraged and aided unsuccessfully telephone attorney. Hubble to an At his also request, they contacting probation succeeded who, likewise, officer Appellee advised to find a him police public facts showed that the advised that a might barracks, defender not come the police they while still continued to him urge public to call the defender. coats, Appellee put proceeded and his wife then on their exit, conferring length being towards an but after and him told placing that the now had information crime, scene of the returned to give Hubble statement. admission, appeal

In an of the use at trial of the we held Hubble, first, regarding utterances Appellee’s imprecise trigger were too rule prophylactic Ed barring police interrogation required by as Arizona, 451 1880, wards v. U.S. 68 L.Ed.2d denied, reh’g. 101 S.Ct. (1981): “To hold that every L.Ed.2d 984 utterance Edwards automatically” invokes “would ‘lawyer’ word far too not the interests of rigid justice.” serve concluded, not misled secondly, Appellee We also public the erroneous statement Appellee’s then included utterances defender. We within *4 Bradshaw, Oregon the of circumstances test totality 77 L.Ed.2d which suspect holds that a rather than the initiates police where conversation, the is not auto suppressed evidence matically under Edwards. We buttressed this last conclu if noting sion as well that even the initial admission had by infirm, gave statements later voluntarily been Hubble stressed any original in case cured defect. We any which equivo- honored” police “scrupulously the fact the Hubble’s helping lawyer by cal statement the need for telephone providing him number and up attorney’s look in made a crucial telephone. Finally, him Hubble we with the erroneous suspect by that the was not misled the defender would not travel public statement that police barracks, in our and we reiterated that conclusion 504 A.2d at 173 and 175. Hubble 509 Pa. opinion. misleading the act because emphasize any We absence in apparent opposite finding that an Hubble readily in a different outcome. have resulted review, In case under hold that the present we Griggs impermissi- statement the authorities by thereby By inducement and tainted his admissions. ble impression the distinct that the district conveying in a confession on cooperation giving would be told of inducement inescapable there occurred an which spot, recognize cannot condoned under our law. For while we to conduct legitimate responsibility that the have a including interrogations, suspects criminal investigations, their minds as to right up have a constitutional to make own Promises of they protections. want the Miranda considerations, intent, benign or however special benefits comprise persuasion trickery easily the sort of which giving process can mislead into confessions. The suspects should rendering proceed freely with- intruding police. Only out frustration admissions, validity subsequent fashion can we trust employment exploited illegal- for if the initial of Miranda is succeeding compromised. declarations are ly, promises statements and choke off Misleading very moment which Miranda was legal process designed protect. squarely rests on Hubble. There we af- analysis

Our of a confession after admissibility firmed the had “scrupulously to determine that able rights and that he had not been suspect’s honored” the Moreover, inquiries. ap- Hubble’s by investigative misled following Appellee’s initiation of a of a confession proval *5 predicated conversation with the was on itself an by interrogators absence efforts to mislead and induce place and took suspect suspect after the was read his contrast, rights. By improper here the suggestion a in return cooperation benefit for poisoned interrogation are system. prepared say We not to that the Appellant’s initiation conversation in this case is constitutionally permissible unless there is a prior that the initiation was not induced in the first instance but occurred after given. Miranda Since the circumstances of preclude this a finding, case such we now decide that the testimony at the barracks was infirm. Because we hold that the police engaged in induce- ment, there no need to address issue of whether the precise utterance sufficiently hand, pass muster under Hubble. On the one if it is made, assumed that a valid Edwards all interrogation. have halted Subsequent conversa- suspect tion then likewise would be tainted because product continuing would be the improper persuasion. hand, On the other if the did qualify utterance not as an unequivocal point call for an that attorney, also justified were not an admission promoting by suggesting if ask for suspect representation. benefit not In our today, decision decide are permitted employ impair not inducements which suspect’s right to his unfettered evaluation way own of the need for counsel. legal progeny, its Hubble, make no especially otherwise would sense. Appellant’s request granted. a new trial is remaining allegations in this not appeal are ad- dressed decision.

LARSEN, J., dissenting opinion files a in which McDERMOTT, JJ., join. FLAHERTY and LARSEN, Justice, dissenting. conclusion,

I Contrary majority’s appel- dissent. lant’s not under statements were inadmissible Common- Hubble, (1986). Also, Pa. wealth v. conclusion, contrary majority’s agree do not “impermissible there was an inducement” by police officers in this case that “tainted” appellant’s statements. Hubble, Arizona,

As we stated in Edwards v. *6 477, 1880, (1981), denied, S.Ct. 68 L.Ed.2d 378 reh’g. 973, 101 69 L.Ed.2d 984 does not require officer to stand mute an equivocal when mention of the “lawyer” word is uttered an áccused who has warnings. case, been his Miranda In the instant appellant stated I merely “Maybe should talk to a good What would it do me to tell officer you?” faith, responded, good good that he did not know what (the officer) do him that but would tell the District I Attorney appellant’s cooperation. interpret do not appellant’s question “what would it do me to tell you” as a request legal opinion for a from the officer on the legal advantages gained counsel, to be by securing legal nor do interpret I should talk to “Maybe lawyer” unequivo as an cal interrogation cease and retain a lawyer; neither did suppression court make such interpretations. I would affirm suppression court and I uphold admissibility appellant’s statements. McDERMOTT, JJ.,

FLAHERTY and join dissenting opinion. COUNSEL, Petitioner,

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY BRAUN, Seymour Respondent. H.

Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued Sept. 1988. Decided Jan. 1989.