*1 A.2d Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH STARKES, Appellant. Roddy Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Argued Jan. 1974. March Decided *3 Munson, Townsend, Dimeling, Elliott & R. William appellant. Philadelphia, for Sprague, A. First Specter, Atty., Richard
Arlen Dist. Richman, Atty., Atty., Dist. Dist. David Asst. Asst. J; ap- Philadelphia, Appeals Ranney, T. Chief, Div., pellee. EAGEN, JONES, J., O’BRIEN, ROB-
Before C. POMEROY, MANDERINO, ERTS, JJ. NIX and
OPINION NIX, Justice. Roddy Starkes, appellant, case, the seeks
In the instant ground the judgment of sentence on of reversal incriminating by him to offi- made statements improperly into were introduced evidence at cials of record before trial. After careful consideration judg- us, agree with this contention and hold that the we trial ment of sentence must reversed and a new awarded.
Appellant co-defendant, Redmond, were and a Curtis charged robbery-murder arrested and of Mr. with February Stradling occurred on Edward which During of home the victim. the course of rob- bery the deceased struck with the butt of a butcher was Injuries during knife and stabbed back. sustained ap- course this attack resulted his death. The pellant guilty was tried and found of murder in first aggravated robbery, burglary conspiracy. degree, denied, filed Post-trial motions sentence were and a imprisonment imposed of life on the murder bill appeal indictment. This direct follows.1 September P.M., 14, 1970, approximately On 2:20 investigating officers arrived at residence appellant. They appellant’s they mother advised conducting investigation concerning were death Stradling suspect. At this Mr. her was a son years age. time Starkes was fourteen request appellant officers, At the was taken questioning. Appellant’s the Homicide Unit for mother permitted had been advised that she would be to accom- pany Headquarters, her son to Police but informed the go However, officers she was unable to at that she time. *4 Ap- shortly did state she intended to follow thereafter. pellant police and the officers arrived at Police Head- Appeal judgment imposed 1. from of sentence on the murder charge Act, pursuant Appellate before isus to the Court Jurisdiction 31, 1970, 673, 223, II, July 202(1), § Act of P.L. No. 17 art. 211.202(1) (Supp. 1974-75). appeal § P.S. The from convic- tions under the other bills of indictment before this Court are 31, pursuant Act, Appellate July to of Court Jurisdiction Act 1970, 673, 223, V, 211.503(a) 503(a), § § P.L. No. art. 17 P.S. (Supp. 1974-75).
182 appellant P.M., P.M., was
quarters
at 3:40
at 3:15
Arizona.2
given
warnings mandated
Miranda v.
responded
warnings
monosylla
appellant
with
to
The
part
responses.
made on the
No further effort was
bic
of
police
to
extent
Starkes’
of
determine the
officers
questioning
rights.
comprehension of these
Custodial
period
approximately
began
of
and continued
a
then
terminating
P.M.
twenty minutes,
at
5:00
one hour
appellant
questioning,
de
During
period of
this initial
any knowledge
of
incident.
nied
P.M., appellant’s
joined
mother
her son
At about 6:00
period of
de-
with him for a
time
alone
and remained
good
During
being
pretty
by her as
“a
while”.
scribed
mother,
of the conversation with his
she en-
the course
couraged
It is
officers the
to tell
truth.
significant
to note that
had
been instructed
she
rights
A
in-
of
accused in criminal case.
second
a
during
P.M.,
terrogation
at
session commenced
8:07
inculpatory
appellant’s
made
which
first
statement was
warnings
approximately
8:45 P.M.
first set
given
presence
appellant
of his mother
imme-
was
diately prior
formal written
the commencement
A.M.,
following morning.
statement
12:47
trial,
suppress
motion to
this state
Prior
a
knowing
asserting
not a
ment was
there was
filed
voluntary
the motion
argument,
waiver. After
436,
1602,
(1966).
2. 384 U.S.
S.Ct.
183 denied. statement by was introduced the Common- during appellant. Objection wealth the trial of the the introduction of statement for the stated reason again support post-trial and, motions, raised in thus, properly preserved appellate has been review. proving,
The Commonwealth has the burden of
preponderance
evidence,
the accused’s
knowing
intelligent
confession was obtained after a
safeguards.
waiver of his constitutional
Commonwealth
Goodwin,
516,
v.
(J-326
460 Pa.
(1975)
Most we observed Commonwealth v. Good- win, supra, that: Supreme
“The United States
Ari
Court in Miranda v.
zona,
436,
384
1602,
U.S.
86 S.Ct.
“The ultimate test that which has been remains *6 only Anglo-American clearly in courts established test years: Is for two of hundred the test voluntariness. product essentially the confession of free is, choice it if he has unconstrained its maker? If confess, may against willed to it him. If it is be used not, capacity if his will has been overborne and his critically impaired, self-determination of use Richmond, Rogers process. confession offends due v. 534, 735, The line of 365 U.S. 5 L.Ed.2d 81 governing distinction is that at self-direction which compulsion, however lost and or whatever nature infused, propels helps propel or confession.” (Emphasis added). Connecticut, Culombe v. 367 U.S. 568, 1860, 602, 1879, (1961). 81 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1037 also, Goodwin, supra, See Commonwealth v. and cases cited therein.
Further, determining the voluntariness of the waiver, attending must all factors and circumstances be considered and evaluated:
“ inter duration, . the methods of . . [T]he rogation ; detention, manifest at the conditions of defendant, defend titude of toward physical psychological all other ant’s state and pow may present which serve to one’s conditions drain suggestion his self- ers resistance to and undermine Connecticut, supra See Culombe v. determination. 1860]; 602, Commonwealth S.Ct. at at [367 [81 U.S.] 151, supra Rundle, v. at ex rel. Butler [429 Pa.] 431; supra Eiland, A.2d at Commonwealth v. [450 Rig 654; v. 574, at Commonwealth 301 A.2d at Pa.] gins, supra [451 Pa. 519] at 525, 304 A.2d [473] at supra 407, 476; at Banks, Commonwealth Pa.] [454 noted, question A.2d at 579. As we have when passes beyond physical realm voluntariness degrees psychological coercion, coercion into any facts, most careful attention will be afforded tending circumstances or events to overbear the will of the accused. Commonwealth ex Butler v. rel. Rundle, supra A.2d 149, 239 430.” [429 Pa.] Alston, 134, Commonwealth v. 456 Pa. 317 A.2d (1974). Goodwin, supra. also See Commonwealth v. addition, recognized we have where accused years given
is a scrutiny child tender must closer determining adequacy of the waiver. person
“.
.
.
hat where the
of ten-
involved is
[T]
years,
attending
der
circumstances must be scruti-
special
intelligent
nized with
care before an
and know-
ing
*7
Fogan,
waiver is declared.” Commonwealth v.
su-
pra;
558,
See
Jones,-Pa.
-,
Commonwealth v.
315 A.2d
(1974) (J-355
Porter,
1973);
280
Commonwealth v.
153,
449 Pa.
(1972);
Specifics intelligence, age, such as mental physical development suspect of the minor are relevant in factors a determination or not the ad as whether product missions of a unfettered were free and will only appreciation rights and made after full of the that protect him. 389,
In Roane, Commonwealth v. A.2d 459 Pa. (1974) we observed: important establishing juve-
“An factor in that a rights nile’s waiver of his a know- constitutional ing intelligent that, one would before be evidence rights, ac- he made his decision to those he had waive attorney, parent, cess to the advice of a or adult other primarily who was interested in his Id. at welfare.” 393, 329 A.2d 288. Jones,
See
supra.
also
v.
Commonwealth
vein,
Supreme
the same
States
ob-
United
Court
Gallegos
Colorado,
in
served
370 U.S.
(1962):
“[The possession full of his senses and knowl- adult edgeable He consequences of his admissions. knowing way consequences no would have what the rights his confession without as were advice securing —from him those someone concerned with rights judgment mature without the aid of more —and steps predicament as to the take he should lawyer which he found relative or an adult himself. A protection petitioner or given friend could have immaturity which his advice own not. Adult could footing put unequal would have with him on a less against this interrogators. Without some adult advice inequality, boy year-old not be able would he know, assert, let alone such constitutional ef- would, in To had. allow this conviction to stand constitutional fect, if no treat him as he had rights.” 54-55, Id. at 82 S.Ct. reasoning suggested these cases have
advisability of a crime of adult for minors accused advice immaturity premised upon recognition their deprives judgment possessed by the them of the sober necessarily *8 average reasoning adult. assumes This knowledge- offering is in fact adult who the advice is ac- position of the person able of the in of a Where, conver- however, fact is not cused. the adult in a guarantees surround sant with constitutional only person presence not crime, aof or her accused his provide fails rationale the assistance envisioned might actually of decisions, frustrate these but sought which is by having to be achieved an adult present. testimony parent
The of the in this case is illus- most point: trative
“Q. Starkes, Mrs. you when were down at the Police Building, you Administration your did tell son to tell the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. you Did want the truth tell ? A. I told him that’s I I didn’t all know. told him I saying right know I thing whether was but or not BY THE COURT:
Q. you you No. He question. asked direct tell a Did your son to tell the truth?
A. (Emphasis Yes.” added). plight
The juvenile suspect of graphically a de- picted by Haley Douglas Mr. Justice of v. case Ohio, (1948): 332 U.S. 92 L.Ed.
“Age age boy is a tender and difficult a judged by race. He cannot exacting stan- more maturity. dards That which man would leave a unimpressed cold and can a overawe and overwhelm early lad in period great teens. in- This stability produces. which the crisis adolescence
. But we cannot believe that lad of tender years is a match for the in such a He contest. support needs counsel and if he is not become fear, panic. victim first of then of He needs someone on overpowering presence whom to lean lest it, law, 599-560, he knows crush him” Id. S. Ct. at 304. Gallegos Supreme Court further Colo- observed
rado, supra: says prosecution boy that the
“The was advised right counsel, did but he either for ask
lawyer parents. 14-year-old boy, or for no his But a sophisticated, unlikely matter how is to con- have ception of what him ac- will confront when he is made only police. to say, cessible to the That is deal we person equal police with a who not to is in knowl- edge understanding consequences and being questions is un- and answers recorded and who protect to to how able know how interests or own Id. get rights.” to the benefits his constitutional 370 U.S. at at 1212. 82 S.Ct. inequali present an informed adult is
Where police ty position some ex accused is to However, process tent neutralized and satisfied. due ignorant is of the constitutional where the adult suspect exerts in criminal case and that surround decision, upon reaching or her influence the minor process An uninformed it clear that due is offended. is interrogation presents an present during adult custodial is liability. situation greater minor in such a even to protection, forced given is in fact illusion of but advice incapable providing the rely upon who one counsel needed such a situation. par- advise officers also require we Unless suspects position to counsel minor ents, are who only fail interrogation, during will we custodial type this sought to be attained full benefits assure the that likelihood counseling increase the also but we will rights.4 to his suspect as will be misinformed came incriminatory statements first Here the young man entreaties only mother’s after ” laudible Regardless of how truth . . . “tell the primary motives, obscure cannot we the mother’s fully realized minor to whether consideration any statements to make legally required he was not Courts, (Chil- (1966) Family for Juvenile 4. See Standards Welfare). Health, Bureau, Education Department of dren’s respond which would tend to incriminate or presence questions par- without the of counsel. Where a present require parent ent is we must at to be least *10 rights possessed by suspect advised of the the minor be- parent may permitted fore that to influence the deci- pressure sion which minor must make. Whether the respond police to to questioning from the overzeal- flows police ousness or the unadvised entreaties of a parent, equally well-intentioned to the result is offensive concept process protection our of due and frustrates sought provided by to be our Constitution. requirement fully that such a
We believe is consistent by Miranda, supra, with the burden mandated deci- sion. heavy government
“A burden rests on to demon- knowingly intelligently strate that the defendant and privilege against his his and waived self-incrimination appointed right to retained or counsel”. Id. U.S. S.Ct. at 1628. record, has failed the Commonwealth On this respond appellant to to that the of the establish decision by substantially influenced questioning of her mother. view uninformed entreaties of the appellant’s rights, it cannot be lack of as to awareness intelligent knowing one. said and the choice was a subsequently advised Nor is the fact that she was taking rights immediately the for preceding these help any position of the Com mal statement of to the incriminating point statements At monwealth. had been made and the die had been cast.
Judgment new trial of sentence is reversed and a awarded. dissenting opinion
EAGEN, J., in which filed a J., join. JONES, POMEROY, J., C.
O’BRIEN, J., concurs in the result. (dissenting).
EAGEN, Justice ap- proof at trial that the The in this case established “gang” into pellant Starkes and entered a fellow member plan Philadelphia forty-seven-year-old a to rob a male in freely imbibing too who was known for intoxicants companion too often. When Starkes and his arrived victim, they the residence of their intended found expected, compel him to hand inebriated. In an effort money, over the victim was beaten with available knife and he failed butt of thirteen-inch butcher when respond assaults, then he was stabbed these knife of the back with knife Starkes. blade body depth inches penetrated the to a of seven victim’s then causing co-felon a fatal wound. Starkes up victim, propped body person searched the phone against wall, from the hook removed *11 Tied the scene. po- days into crimes, Starkes was taken
Two after the majority of this Court custody lice and confessed. A a constitutionally say invalid as now confession this admittedly mother, who matter law because Starkes’ counseling at all times him and relevant was with confession, of her son’s was not advised including silent. rights, right to remain constitutional position. individual’s to this An I cannot subscribe rights personal the cru- matter and constitutional are maker is whether the in this and similar cases cial issue Starkes) fully (herein understood confession intelligently. It knowingly rights and waived them fully disputed personally warned not that Starkes was view, my In rights he understood them. and said of his effectively rights these then waived he did and whether evidentiary hearings this on Two issue fact. was an judge on transpired court, first before issue trial jury of suppress trial the motion to and then before a instances, of fact the triers citizens. twelve both knowlingly intel- found knew his Starkes ligently per- waived he I them before confessed. am findings these should be overruled. suaded I dissent. J., POMEROY,
JONES, join J., in this C. dissent- ing opinion.
Argued April 1974.
Decided March 1975. Rehearing April 29, Denied