THE PEOPLE, Plаintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Crim. No. 10070
In Bank. Supreme Court of California
Mar. 10, 1969.
Respondent‘s petition for a rehearing was denied April 2, 1969. McComb, J., Mosk, J., and Burke, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
70 Cal. 2d 562 | 451 P.2d 74 | 75 Cal. Rptr. 642
I would affirm the judgment.
McComb, J., and Burke, J., concurred.
Paul N. Halvonik and Marshall W. Krause as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Granucci and Karl S. Mayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
SULLIVAN, J.—On applicаtion by defendant after our decision herein. (People v. Sanchez (1967) 65 Cal.2d 814 [56 Cal.Rptr. 648, 423 P.2d 800]), we granted his petition to recall the remittitur and vacated the decision wherein we had affirmed a judgment imposing the death penalty for a violation of
We set forth the relevant facts.3 On April 23, 1965, defendant, an inmate at the State Prison at San Quentin undergoing a life sentence, was assigned to work under the supervision of Ralph Canning in the prison clothing factory. Canning and Chester Malin were civilian foremen in the factory; Stanford Raymond, not present on the day in question, was superintendent. No correctional officers were assigned to the factory area.
During the noon lunch period Canning and Malin were eating together in the superintendent‘s office enclosure within the factory. Defendant while on his way to lunch learned from another inmate that Canning intended to write a report about defendant‘s involvement in a sex complaint. Upset by this information and unable to eat his lunch, defendant rеturned to the clothing factory and entered the superintendent‘s office to discuss the matter with Canning in Malin‘s presence. In the ensuing discussion, defendant denied complicity in any sex offense, while Canning insisted that it was nevertheless his duty to report the matter. During the conversation defendant seemed “very irritated.” Canning refused to discuss the matter further during the lunch hour and defendant eventually returned to his assigned station in the factory. Defendant testified that when he commenced work at his machine he could not concentrate on the job. He made a cup of coffee, but could not concentrate on drinking it. While returning his cup to its placе in a drawer, he found a knife there.
Sergeant Beighley, a correctional offiсer, was called and arrived within a few minutes. The officer, upon seeing the body, asked, “Who did this?” Malin pointed to defendant, who was standing nearby. Beighley did not know defendant and had no recollection of having seen him before. He walked up to defendant who thereupon surrendered the knife. Beighley dropped it on the floor, placed his foot on it, and proceeded to search defendant for other weapons. He noticed that defendant‘s clothing was covered with blood. As he was searching defendant, Beighley inquired, “Why did you do it?” Defendant replied, “He was going to give me a sex beef.” Beighley rejoined: “You have got something worse than a sex beef now.”
The other inmates then left the clothing factory. As they were checked out, Malin observed each one but saw no one with blood on his clothing.
About 2:30 p.m. defendant was brought to the captain of the prison‘s correctional officers, Captain Hocker, to be interrogated. The latter advised defendant that he had a right to remain silent and not answer any questions, that he had a right to an attorney if he so desired, and that anything he said could be used against him. Defendant nevertheless chose to tell Captain Hocker what had happened. He stated that some time after his first talk with Canning he armеd himself with a weapon and again attempted, unsuccessfully, to discuss the matter of the report Canning proposed to make. He then stated that he commenced to stab his victim. The foregoing conversation was not recorded.
Between 3 and 3:30 p.m. a deputy district attorney accompanied by a stenographic reporter interrogated defendant. Upon being advised again of his constitutional rights, defendant requested the assistance of counsel, and an unsuccessful attempt was made to obtain one.
On the following day Captain Hocker and a Lieutenant
Defendant took the stand to testify in his own behalf. He stated that after seeing the knife in the drawer as he was returning his coffee cup he blacked out and that he remembered nothing until he regained consciousness in the adjustment center shortly after his first interview with Captain Hocker. He testified further that he had a similar experience in 1958 when he assaulted an inmate. He was impeached to some extent, however, when he admitted on cross-examination that during the trial for the earlier assault he had described that attack in detail and when an investigating officer testified that defendant had related details of the prior attack to him soon after it occurred.
Defendant contends on appeal4 (1) that there is insufficient evidence to establish that he acted with malice aforethought; (2) that he was mentally incapable of malicious conduct; (3) that the admission in evidence of his statement made to Sergeant Beighley constitutes reversible error under the rules announced in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758] and People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal. Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361];5 (4) that his confession made in Captain Hocker‘s office was involuntary; (5) that, even assuming it was voluntary and that he had been properly advised of his rights in accordance with Escobedo and Dorado, defendant, because of his then physical condition was unable to make an intelligent waiver of such rights; (6) that defendant‘s confession at the prison hospital was involuntary; (7) that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting in evidence, over defendant‘s objections, certain photographs of the victim‘s body; (8) that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on diminished capacity with respect to malice aforethought; (9)
We have no doubt that, if our inquiry were confined to the testimony of Captain Hocker as to events transpiring in his office, which testimony is corroborated by that of defendant on voir dire, we would be compelled to the conclusion that the confession was properly received. Thus, as we have noted, Captain Hocker advised defendant of his constitutional rights in the manner required by Dorado, and defendant personally testified that the captain made no threats or promises which tended to induce the stаtements defendant made; that defendant understood these warnings; that he knew he had the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent if he chose to do so; that he knew that anything he might say could be used against him, but that he told Captain Hocker he wanted to talk about what happened in the clothing factory; and that he told the captain the truth of what had happened.6
There are, however, other matters which bear on the admissibility of the confession. When the prosecution proposed that Captain Hocker testify as to the content of the conversation in his office, defense counsel objected on the ground of involuntariness based on events taking place immediately before defendant entered the office. On voir dire the captain then testified that at the time defendant entered the office he “appeared to have sustained an injury” about the face, and “was bleeding slightly from the nose.” When the captain
Defendant‘s claim that his confession to Captain Hocker was involuntary, and his further claim that he made no intelligent waiver of his constitutional rights were also supported by People‘s voir dire Exhibit No. 1. Such document, a proper part of the record on appeal (
On the foregoing record on voir dire, the trial court concluded that the confession given to Captain Hocker was not
“If an individual‘s ‘will was overborne’ or if his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,’ his confession is inadmissible because coerced. These standards are applicable whether a confеssion is the product of physical intimidation or psychological pressure. . . .” (Townsend v. Sain (1963) 372 U.S. 293, 307 [9 L.Ed.2d 770, 782, 83 S.Ct. 745], quoting from Reck v. Pate (1961) 367 U.S. 433, 440 [6 L.Ed.2d 948, 953, 81 S.Ct. 1541]; and Blackburn v. Alabama (1960) 361 U.S. 199, 208 [4 L.Ed.2d 242, 249, 80 S.Ct. 274].) In determining whether the defendant‘s confession is the product of a rational intellect and a free will, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession must be taken into account. (Reck v. Pate, supra, 367 U.S. 433, 440 [6 L.Ed.2d 948, 953, 81 S.Ct. 1541]; Payne v. Arkansas (1958) 356 U.S. 560, 567 [2 L.Ed.2d 975, 980, 78 S.Ct. 844]; Fikes v. Alabama (1957) 352 U.S. 191, 197 [1 L.Ed.2d 246, 250, 77 S.Ct. 281]; and see Greenwald v. Wisconsin, supra, 390 U.S. 519.)
In the case at bench, defendant had received only a fifth or sixth grade education, with a record of failures and poor attendance, and had manifested difficulty with the English language. Expert testimony indicated defendant‘s mental level and intelligence to be “borderline retarded,” “low average or borderline defective,” and of a “borderline deficiency caliber.”13 He was beaten in the adjustment center within 30 minutes before his confession to Captain Hocker; he wаs kicked a final time upon leaving the cell in the adjustment center to go to the captain‘s office; he was given a towel to place on his bleeding face; he was dizzy and remained dizzy while in the captain‘s office. As a result of the beating the defendant
The rule has been long and well settled in this state that where a defendant, subjected to threats, violence or other improper influences, makes a confession or other incriminating statement in such a coercive atmosphere and shortly thereafter again incriminates himself under circumstances not manifestly coercive “therе is a presumption that the influence of the prior improper treatment continues to operate on the mind of the defendant and that the subsequent confession is the result of the same influence which rendered the prior confession inadmissible, and the burden is upon the prosecution to clearly establish the contrary. [Citations.]” (People v. Jones, supra, 24 Cal.2d 601, 609; see also People v. Brommel, supra, 56 Cal.2d 629, 634; People v. Loper (1910) 159 Cal. 6, 14-15 [112 P. 720, Ann. Cas. 1912B 1193]; People v. Johnson, supra, 41 Cal. 452, 454-455.) Almost a hundred years ago, this court clearly expounded this rule in the Johnson case where an interval of two days occurred between the involuntary statements of the accused and subsequent statements introduced against them at trial: “[It] is equally clear that if their confession or statement, made befоre the examining magistrate two days thereafter, was a repetition of the statement [involuntarily] made to the Sheriff, or any material portion of such previous statement, the entire statement or confession made to and before the examining magistrate should have been excluded as evidence, by reason of the same having been originally made under such inducements held out to them as to exclude the first confession. The law presumes the subsequent confession to have been made and influenced by the same hopes and fears as the first, and this presumption continues until it is affirmatively established by the prosecution that the influences under which the original confession was made had ceased to operate before the subsequent confes-
In People v. Jones, supra, 24 Cal.2d 601, the defendant after being physically abused made a confession to police officers in Los Angeles which the uncontradicted evidence established was not free and voluntary. As the court observed “Undoubtedly because of the circumstances under which it was made, it was not offered in evidence.” (24 Cal.2d at p. 608.) However, the prosecution introduced into evidence an incriminating statement by the defendant to San Diego officers three days later under circumstances not manifestly coerсive. After giving recognition to the presumption stated above the court in Jones continued: “The determination of the extent of the influence persisting at the time the subsequent confession is made rests, of course, upon attendant circumstances, and the inquiry is whether, considering the age and intelligence of the defendant, the nature and degree of the influence, and the time intervening between the confessions, it can be said that defendant was not induced to confess by reason of the pressure which motivated him to make the first statement, or was not influenced so to do by reason of the prior confession itself.” (24 Cal.2d at p. 609.) We thus concludеd from the uncontradicted facts that the San Diego confession was not voluntary because “under all of the circumstances the entire situation is so inherently coercive that its very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of the mental freedom essential to a valid confession.” (24 Cal.2d at p. 610.)
In the instant case there was no break in the chain of events extending from the physical abuse defendant suffered at the hands of the correctional officers to his immediately following confession made to Captain Hocker. During this time defendant had no opportunity to reassess his situation free from all but the normal disciplinary pressures of prison life. (See United States v. Bayer (1947) 331 U.S. 532, 541 [91 L.Ed. 1654, 1660, 67 S.Ct. 1394].) As he had not been warned that his prior confession made during the beating could not be used against him, the fact that he had made it continued to act as a coercive influence, since “defendant might have concluded that he could not make his case worse than he already had made it. . . .” (People v. Jones, supra, 24 Cal.2d 601, 610.) There was no effort to provide defendant with medical treatment or to otherwise alleviate the continuing physical and psychological effects of the beating. (See
We are satisfied from the totality of the circumstances established by the uncontradicted facts in the record that defendant‘s confession made to Captain Hocker was in fact coerced and not the product of a rational intellect and a free will. We hold that such confession was involuntary and that its use before the jury denied defendant due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Our conclusion that it was involuntary rests not only on our conviction that “defendant‘s will was overborne at the time he confessed” (Reck v. Pate, supra, 367 U.S. 433, 440 [6 L.Ed.2d 948, 953, 81 S.Ct. 1541]; Fikes v. Alabama, supra, 352 U.S. 191) and that the use of the confession offends a “sense of justice” (Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278, 286 [80 L.Ed. 682, 687, 56 S.Ct. 461]; Chambers v. Florida (1940) 309 U.S. 227 [84 L.Ed. 716, 60 S.Ct. 472]) but also on society‘s “‘deep-rooted feeling that the police must obey the law while enforcing the law. . . .‘” (Blackburn v. Alabama (1960) 361 U.S. 199, 207 [4 L.Ed.2d 242, 248, 80 S.Ct. 274]; see also People v. Ditson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 415, 436-439 [20 Cal. Rptr. 165, 369 P.2d 714].)
Because the confession made to Captain Hocker was involuntary, it was error to receive it in evidence, and the judgment must be reversed for that reason alone, if not for any other. “It is now axiomatic that a defendant in a criminal case is deprived of due process of law if his conviction is founded, in whole or in part, upon an involuntary confession, without regard for the truth or falsity of the confession, Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 [5 L.Ed.2d 760, 81 S.Ct. 735], and even though there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the conviction. Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401 [89 L.Ed. 1029, 65 S.Ct. 781];
As to all other claims of error there disposed of and except as qualified by this opinion, we adhere to our opinion in People v. Sanchez, supra, 65 Cal.2d 814. Since we must reverse the judgment we deem it unnecessary to consider other claims of error raised by defendant and not decided here or in our prior opinion. We do not, therefore, determine the admissibility of defendant‘s second confession to Captain Hocker made in the hospital the day following the crime. In the event of retrial, questions as to the admissibility of that confession, insofar as its constitutional validity comes into issue, will be governed by the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974] (People v. Doherty (1967) 67 Cal.2d 9, 17 [59 Cal. Rptr. 857, 429 P.2d 177]) as well as by the standards set forth in this opinion and in People v. Jones, supra, 24 Cal.2d 601, 609-610.
The judgment is reversed.
Traynor, C. J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., and Burke, J., concurred.
MCCOMB, J.—I dissent. In my opinion there was ample evidence aside from the confession to support the judgment. Therefore, in accordance with the Constitution of California, article VI, section 13, the alleged error was not prejudicial.
MOSK, J.—While I concur in the modification generally, I do not agree that the standards of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974], apply to the retrial of this case. On that subject I adhere to my dissent in People v. Doherty (1967) 67 Cal.2d 9, 22 [59 Cal.Rptr. 857, 429 P.2d 177].
Notes
“Mr. Kingston would like to ask you a few questions.
“A. Can I have an attorney in here with me? Q. Would you speak up just a little, Mr. Sanchez? A. Can I have an attorney, that is, a lawyer? Q. Yes, you can, at any time. A. Right now; here? Q. I don‘t know if it‘s practical to find one right now. I don‘t believe there is one at the Prison, is there?
“OFFICER SMITH: (Shakes head negatively).
“INMATE SANCHEZ: What I want to say is for my own benefit, and I want to say it in front of him so that he will know that I am telling the truth.
“Q. (By Mr. Paterson) Do you have an attorney of your own? A. No. I would like to have one.
[Omitted herefrom arе excerpts of discussions relating to various attorneys, none of whom were available.]
“Q. I see you have some blood on you, Mr. Sanchez. A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did that come from? A. The officers. Q. And the blood on your chest? A. The same. From my face. Q. How are you feeling now? A. Dizzy. Q. You are feeling dizzy? A. Yes.
“MR. PATERSON: Why don‘t you go ahead, John, and ask a few questions. MR. KINGSTON: Off the record. (Discussion off the record). MR. PATERSON: Let‘s go back on the record.
“Q. (By Mr. Paterson) Mr. Sanchez, as Mr. Keaton says, in all probability you will probably have the Public Defender here in the County. Do you want to call him? A. Yes, sir, I would like to. MR. PATERSON: All right. Can we get an outside line here? OFFICER SMITH: (Nods head affirmatively).
“(At 3:26 P.M. a telephone call was placed by Mr. Keaton to the
“Let the record show that Sergeant W. J. Beighley has come into the room. Beighley is B-e-i-g-h-l-e-y. Q. (By Mr. Paterson) Do you want to tell us what you have already told Captain Hocker and Lieutenant Smith? INMATE SANCHEZ: Well, I would like to have my lawyer at the present time when I tell the truth. Q. (By Mr. Paterson) Sergeant Beighley has brought in a small knife which he just showed to me. He said that you handed it to him; is that right? A. That‘s true. Q. Where did you get this knife? A. It was there. It was there in the clothing factory. Q. It was in the clothing factory? A. Yes. Q. What did you do with this knife? A. I went crazy. Q. You went crazy? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do when you went crazy? A. I don‘t recall. I don‘t recall. Then they get me over here. They pick me up. They told me I stab a man. I told them that I stabbed him, but that‘s the last I remember. Q. You told them that you stabbed Mr. Canning? A. Yes. Q. But that‘s the last you remember? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you told them that did thеy make any threats to you? A. Yes, they told me just they was going to bring the case up for you, and ‘I wish I could kill you right now, you sonofabitch, you big mother fucker. You are a bad con.’ Q. Did they make any promises to you? A. Just told me this man died and he was going to come back, going to— Q. You say you got— Somebody hit you here (indicating). Was this before you had the fight with Mr. Canning? A. No. When they took me in the room up there— Q. When was that? A. After they brought me from over there, from the clothing factory.” (Italics added.)
Defense counsel, in urging his objection because “this beating occurred only minutes before [defendant] talked to Capt. Hocker . . .” was overruled by the trial judge, who observed: “It dоesn‘t appear that if any such beating were given there was any such results. Mr. DURHAM [Counsel for defendant]: That is only human nature, the only conclusion that could be reached. MR. SHAW [Prosecutor]: Mr. Sanchez
Citing inter alia Brown v. Mississippi (1936) 297 U.S. 278, 287 [80 L.Ed. 682, 687, 56 S.Ct. 461]; Chambers v. Florida (1940) 309 U.S. 227, 228-229 [84 L.Ed. 716, 717-718, 60 S.Ct. 472]; Lisenba v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 219, 237-238 [86 L.Ed. 166, 180-181, 62 S.Ct. 280]; Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) 322 U.S. 143, 147-148 [88 L.Ed. 1192, 1195-1196, 64 S.Ct. 921]; Malinski v. New York (1945) 324 U.S. 401, 404 [89 L.Ed. 1029, 1032, 65 S.Ct. 781]; Stroble v. California (1952) 343 U.S. 181, 190 [96 L.Ed. 872, 880, 72 S.Ct. 599]; Payne v. Arkansas (1958) 356 U.S. 560, 562 [2 L.Ed.2d 975, 977, 78 S.Ct. 844].