People v. Spring

Comment, Farish, Supplementing (Colo. 675 P.2d 300 Functional Sandoval 1984). Immunity, Test Prosecutorial Stan. unfounded litiga- “[HJarassment (1982). L.Rev. 487 prose- tion would a deflection of cause energies public duties, cutor’s from his 485, Atkins, Simons, 556 F.2d at possibility that he would shade his deci- 774, prosecutorial F.2d at held that investi- exercising sions instead of the indepen- gation integral is the preparation judgment required by public dence of case and prosecution’s which focuses Imbler, trust.” atU.S. 96 S.Ct. at prosecution on is whether warranted 991. against suspect is particular quasi-judicial a absolutely immune conduct from section dissent, For the reasons set forth in this prosecutorial investigation 1983 suit. Such I would affirm the district court’s judg- apparently exactly is the conduct that the setting against ment the verdicts aside Flo- present classify in case majority would rey grounds and Miller on the of absolute function” as “traditional undeserv- immunity. ing immunity. of Imbler majority I with the that the avail

ability of alternate remedies deter and

rectify misconduct prosecutorial should be determining

considered whether absolute granted to

immunity prosecu should be

tor in The particular case. adversarial process, evidentiary the use of rules, professional rules of of the State of

exclusionary PEOPLE Colorado, Petitioner, discipline, possibility even the crimi and. liability prosecutor nal on the possible all alternative remedies for SPRING, Leroy Respondent. John prosecutorial rather misconduct than dam ages 1983. under section See Butz v. Eco SPRING, Petitioner, Leroy John 515-16, nomou, 438 U.S. L.Ed.2d 895 of the State PEOPLE investigation prior to the Prosecutorial Colorado, Respondent. filing charges necessarily focuses is, charges 83SC145, whether are warranted and Nos. 83SC155. my view, absolutely im- conduct which Colorado, Supreme Court of liability mune under from section 1983. En Banc. case, Florey In and Miller Dec. absolutely liability immune should be under 1983 for all of acts al- section Rehearing As Modifiedon Denial leged approval photo by Higgs. The Jan. sup- lineup, drafting of the affidavit port 41.1 of the Crim.P. nontestimonial order, and draft-

identification evidence

ing support arrest affidavits Higgs and a search

warrant for warrant investigative all ac- Higgs’

for house were gather

tivities determine prosecution

whether warranted

against Higgs. Barriers should not be prosecutor from exer- prevent

erected to

cising judgment in de- unfettered free and charge filed.

termining whether a should be Vela, De- State Public

David F. Colorado fender, O’Leary, Be- Margaret L. Seth J. Defenders, nezra, Deputy State Public Denver, Leroy Spring. for John Woodard, Gen., Atty. unduly Duane Charles B. that the trial court was restrictive Howe, Gen., Deputy refusing Atty. testimony Chief Richard H. to admit certain of- Forman, Gen., Phelan, Sol. Maureen Asst. fered the defendant. Gen., Denver,

Atty. People. for the I. LOHR, Justice. Leroy Spring Defendant John (Colo. charged County In 671 P.2d 965 Moffat District Court App.1983), Appeals degree the Colorado Court of with the first murder of Donald presented reversed the conviction of defendant John Walker.2 Evidence at trial es- Leroy Spring degree for first murder be- tablished that Walker was shot to death nighttime early cause it concluded that the trial court erred Febru- during a elk hunt in denying sup- ary company Spring the defendant’s motion to of 1979while in the man, press Wagner. certain statements made him and another Donald custody during questioning by po- hunting while in three men had driven to a site near granted People’s peti- Craig, lice officers. We by Colorado. Walker was asked one holding. tion for certiorari to of the other men review to walk ahead and search granted Wagner We also of the defend- a ravine next to the road for elk. petition in flashlight ant’s for certiorari which he then asked to shine a in Walker, whereupon Wag- contends that the trial court committed re- the direction of by improperly limiting versible error his ner fired a rifle shot that in hit Walker right dropped in ground. his own behalf head and him to the witnesses, through Wagner approached defense not issue then the victim and shot, by appeals.1 reached the court of fired a second in resulted Walk- Spring’s er’s death. defense at trial was appeals of We with the court knowledge Wagner that he had no was denying erred in the district court the de- going to shoot and kill Walker and that he suppress fendant’s motion to two of the Wagner burying in body assisted Walker’s question, three statements in concealing in the snow further result, required although trial is new as a Wagner. murder he because was afraid of agree fully reasoning we do not with the jury was convicted first appeals. the court of We also affirm the degree impris- murder and sentenced to life appeals’ holding court of it was not onment, appealed. and he the third established whether statement product illegally appeals of an was obtained court reversed the convic- and, therefore, tion, pro- holding that further that statements made to offi- ceedings necessary 30, 1979, by Spring July are to resolve the issue cers on March People if custody, attenuation seek to intro- while he was in duce that statement into evidence at a re- taken violation his constitutional Spring. People trial of Because certain errors al- and that the had failed to leged by Spring petition statement, his for certiorari establish that a third likely again upon retrial, Spring May to arise we not a fruit of opinion Specifically, address them in this and conclude the March 30 statement. certiorari, petition As one issue in his We for their briefs. decline to discuss these issues Spring argued improperly that the trial court other than to state that we have reviewed the statement, opening limited his his cross-exami- record and conclude that the district court did prosecution his nation of two witnesses and not abuse its discretion or commit reversible direct examination of defense witnesses. We regard error with to these matters. issue; rather, did not order review of this entire granted certiorari review charged with that form of first improperly prevented assertion that he was degree murder that is committed delib- "[a]fter presenting own behalf evidence on his and with the intent to cause the death of eration Nevertheless, through defense witnesses. both person other than 18-3- [the actor]." § argued People "opening 102(l)(a), 8 C.R.S. statement" and “cross-examination” issues in

869 appeals held court of that because A. prior not informed to the March 30 and prosecution may not use state

July 13 interviews that the officers were ments, exculpatory inculpatory, whether question him going to about Walker’s stemming from custodial death, Spring’s waivers of his the defendant unless it demonstrates that main silent and his to counsel were adequately the defendant was warned intelligent regard knowing. With against privilege self-incrimination and statement, July ap- to the right to counsel and thereafter volun peals improperly also held that the officers tarily, knowingly intelligently waived question Spring Walk- continued Arizona, v. rights. those Spring told er’s death after them that 436, 444-45, 467-76, U.S. subject. For did not want to talk about 1612, 1624-1628, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d reasons, the court of conclud- these Lee, People (1966); P.2d ed that trial court committed reversible (Colo.1981). warning The reason for the grant Spring’s it error when refused to that, requirement without such a safe suppress the three statements. motion guard, compelling pressures inherent in People P.2d at We 966-67. custody “work to indi undermine the petition granted People’s for certiorari compel vidual’s will to him to resist and holdings. suppression to review these speak so would otherwise do [where] for petition The defendant also filed a Lee, freely.” certiorari, arguing that the trial court com- Arizona, quoting Miranda v. variety during of errors his trial mitted 467, sep 86 S.Ct. at 1624. A consideration suppress to the failure to the chal- addition requirement arate from of an advise lenged statements. We decided to review rights ment of and a valid waiver of those im- the trial court assertion rights a is that statement obtained from a right evi- properly limited only if is admissible made volun defendant through on his behalf defense dence own Denno, 368, Jackson v. tarily. 378 84 U.S. begin We with an examination witnesses. (1964); People v. 1774,12 L.Ed.2d 908 suppression issues. 935, (Colo.1982). A Thorpe, 641 P.2d 941 process rights are

defendant’s due violated II. founded, in inor if his conviction is whole Peo involuntary part, upon an statement. to law en- made three statements (Colo. 722, ple Connelly, v. 702 P.2d 728 custody, in each forcement officers while Thus, 1985). reviewing motion to when a rights with- after an advisement one statement, suppress a and after determin attorney present. of those out an Two preceded by a ing that the statement at evidence were admitted into statements advisement, a re proper Miranda court is statements, and the circum- trial. quired to address both the effectiveness surrounding making, their will be stances rights the waiver Miranda the vol- in B A of the below. review described People of the statement itself. untariness governing the admissibil- general principles Pierson, 770, (Colo. v. 775-76 670 by person ity of statements made a Fish, 505, People 1983); v. considering 660 P.2d custody will be useful before (Colo.1983).3 issue. the statements at however, recognize, steps that both involve a We trial court must follow We have held that a 3. inquiry totality reviewing into circumstances two-step analysis a motion when surrounding making in an determining wheth- suppress a statement —first attempt voluntarily, knowingly the voluntariness and in- ascertain er the defendant telligently reason, and, so, many actions. For that if defendant's his Miranda waived may the two factors consideration of determining cases the whether the statement then by Fish, findings made neat and distinct. The voluntarily. People P.2d at not be v. reality— reflect that trial court in this case prosecution burden carries different analyze separately each issue analysis. court did not respect phase Id. to each 1985); Fish, First, People P.2d at 508. the trial court must determine v. voluntarily, the defendant know may they whether if Statements not be admitted intelligently ingly and waived his threats, through promises, were obtained right to remain silent and his have counsel violence, improper other influence. Pierson, present. People 670 P.2d at v. People Cummings, 706 P.2d at 769. v. 775; Fish, “A People v. 660 P.2d at 508. Findings of fact made a trial court as knowing waiver is valid if it is a and intelli concerning part of its determination gent relinquishment of a known un validity and the of waiver volun- totality of the circumstances which der the upheld on tariness of a statement will be particular determined ‘the turn is appeal supported by adequate if evidence in surrounding facts and circumstances [that] People Cummings, 706 P.2d the record. v. case, including background, experience, Pierson, 776; 769; People 670 P.2d at at v. ” People and conduct of the accused.’ Freeman, 1371, People v. 668 P.2d Pierson, quoting P.2d at Johnson Fish, (Colo.1983); People v. 660 P.2d at 458, 464, Zerbst, 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. However, appellate The burden 82 L.Ed.2d may ignore uncontradicted and credible by clear and prove prosecution is on the contrary evidence the record that defendant convincing evidence the trial court’s decision. v. Free rights. constitutional waived his man, 668 P.2d at 1378. Ari Miranda v. Fish, at 508. See mind, general principles in (a With these at 1628 zona, at 86 S.Ct. 384 U.S. description analysis turn next to government to on the “heavy rests burden surrounding making the circumstances knowingly defendant demonstrate that by Spring. of the statements rights). A val intelligently waived” simply be presumed will not be id waiver has been obtained a statement cause B. Arizona, 384 the defendant. trial, Spring Prior to filed motion to 1628; People v. After a suppress the relevant statements. “Moreover, any Pierson, P.2d at 776. hearing March the trial court threatened, that the accused order, included find- issued a written will, of tricked, a waiver cajoled into fact, sup- denying motion to ings of the not vol course, did that the defendant show concerning press. The facts each relevant privilege.” Miranda his untarily waive that follow come from the statement at 1629.

Arizona, U.S. at fact, findings supplemented court’s necessary by testimony given the where defend If the court determines that the by suppression hearing and other facts rights, constitutional validly his ant waived the record. decide whether the must then the voluntarily statement defendant’s March Statement of 776; Pierson, People v. 670 P.2d at made. 30, 1979, Fish, at 508. The bur on March Spring 660 P.2d was arrested Missouri, City, by agents of the to estab in Kansas prosecution the proof is on

den of Alcohol, and evidence, Bureau of Tobacco federal by preponderance lish a (ATF) charges of Firearms on interstate considering totality of the circumstanc the firearms and other voluntary. transportation of stolen es, Peo that the statement was (Colo. Acting upon information related offenses. ple Cummings, light circum- in the of the total but surrounding reviewed the factual circumstances ant when viewed rather stances, taking separate making the bur- the into account statements placed prosecution and the real joint on the conclusions as to the waiver and the dens made factors, long the find- between the two voluntariness of each statement. As as differences ings rejected though the trial supports findings by not be even a trial court that should analysis voluntary, knowing intelligent formalistical- waiver and court does not cleave ly a parts. voluntary by the defend- into two statement were informant, provided by George interrogation an Denni- An by agents ATF Sadow- son, agents ski and Patterson up the ATF had set an under- ensued. It is unclear Spring was by agents whether told operation purchase cover from that firearms they question specifically wanted to him during Spring was arrested the firearms about violations for which he this transaction. agents simply was arrested or whether the arrest, agents Spring’s Prior to the ATF began questioning Spring making without by Spring also were told Dennison that had any concerning subject statement mat- Wagner admitted that he and had killed interrogation. ter of the What is clear is agents Walker. At the time the ATF Spring they did not tell ceived information informant going to ask him about the Dennison, body not been dis- Walker’s had killing Spring Walker before made his report covered and no been made to had original decision to waive his Miranda his disappearance. On rights. March a week before primary part The initial and of the March arrest, Spring made additional statements concerned the firearms referring inferentially participation to his led Spring’s transactions that arrest killing telephone of Walker in a Agent afternoon. Patterson testified that Dennison, which was re- conversation with Spring he then asked if he had a criminal agents. by corded the ATF Spring record. he had admitted that arrest, Spring After his advised of stemming juvenile murder record from the rights by agent his years an shooting of his aunt when he was ten scene, then if and was readvised of old. Patterson asked had anyone ever shot else. “At that time he agent being transported another after [Spring] kind of his head and mum- ducked City. the ATF office in Kansas The second ” bled, T guy shot another once.’ Patter- matters advisement not included the if asked he had ever been to son required by Spring had a Miranda —that Colorado, Finally, said Pat- no. silent, to remain he had shot terson asked whether against used made could be as evidence Denver man named Walker west of him in other proceedings, in court and body into Patter- thrown the a snowbank. and have had the consult with testified, “He [Spring] son —there present during questioning, an attorney long pause, then he kind of ducked head that, attorney, if he could afford no further com- and said no—there was appointed one for him would be Patterson, According ment on it.” Arizona, courts, Miranda v. see ended there. interview 444, 467-73, 1624- S.Ct. at statement, Concerning further district also included the 1630—but following findings: if to an- court made advisement that decided of an questions swer without the assistance questioning finds that'this 7. The Court right stop ques- attorney, had the to he Defendant was was conducted while the stop question- or to tioning any custody, at time to a pursuant in valid lawful attorney ing arrest; could presence properly until the an had been that rights being of his his was aware of be After advised and secured.4 advised silent, form stat- to have Coun- rights, Spring signed right written his to remain during interrogation, stop his to ing understood and waived sel that he time; willing interrogation any at and that rights to make a statement and was interrogation to were responses his questions. and answer 1624-1627, 1630; 1612, 467-73, 479, guaranteed rights 86 S.Ct. at Although these are 4. 474, M.R.J., defendant, Arizona, People 633 P.2d 476 384 in the Interest to see Miranda v. 473-74, 1627, required, 444-45, (Colo.1981). though not we Even at Miranda U.S. encourage inclusion of this and require advised of commend that the defendant be did not 444, Arizona, any advisement. in Miranda rights, U.S. at information Miranda these freely, voluntarily intelligently; knowing intelligent and stated that a and waiv- that there no of duress or er of Miranda element cannot occur if the Spring’s coercion used to induce state- defendant is not informed at the time of 30, ments on March as to the nature of the crime about waiver Though it is true that Patterson and going questioned, he is to be specifically Sadowski did not advise held: part that a of their agents duty The had a to inform questions would include about a Colorado suspect, was a or to readvise him homicide, questions sug- themselves rights, question- of his before gested topic inquiry. ques- ing him about the murder.... Because anyone” “shooting tions dealt advise, failed to so specifically killing named Walker a man regard questions designed throwing body in a snowbank in to elicit information about Walker’s questions Colorado. The de- given knowingly death was not or intelli- relating signed gather information gently. subject readily that was not evident (citations omitted). Id. at 966-67 court apparent Spring. Spring had been Spring’s concluded that state- silent, right advised of his to remain “accordingly ment rendered inadmissi- stop answering questions, and to and that his conviction must be re- ble” during Attorney present have an interro- versed, 967, apparently id. unaware that gation. He did not elect to exercise his this statement had not been admitted into to remain silent or to refuse to evidence at trial. relating to the homi- answer

cide, during request nor did Counsel Although suppress the failure to interrogation. March 30 statement cannot be considered the state- 9. The Court concludes reversible error because the statement did ments made to Patterson Sadowski trial, not become of the evidence at sup- on March should not be whether the statement was obtained vio pressed, may be admitted evi- Spring’s rights re lation of constitutional dence. question. If the state mains a relevant obtained, However, prosecu illegally nev- ment was the March 30 statement was trial, During any subsequent er introduced at trial. tion must establish that granted properly the defendant’s motion statement otherwise obtained limine, ruling and admitted into evidence guy irrele- that he “shot another once” was product was not the of the tainted state States, and could not admitted into evi- vant be Wong Sun v. United ment. dence the context of the discussion because (1963); L.Ed.2d 441 indicated that it did not relate to the Walk- Lee, (Colo. Although ruled that er homicide. the court Lowe, 1981); 200 Colo. 475- statement, including the remainder of the Walker, killed Spring's denial that he Although admissible, prosecution nor we neither sup the statement into March 30 statement should have been chose to offer pressed, ap conclude that the court of evidence. peals adopted applied improper le appeals held that it was The court of gal admissibility to resolve the standard suppress the statement of error not above, As outlined the va the statement. that at the March 30. The court first noted lidity Spring’s waiver of constitutional of obtained, Spring Spring's time waiver was upon rights determined an exami must be informed the had not been totality the of the circumstances nation of they going question him about the were surrounding making the of the statement Spring, 671 People v. homicide. Walker voluntary, if the waiver was then to determine at 966. The court of P.2d

873 intelligent. People v. Pier waiver knowing when faced with facts similar to son, Fish, People 775; presented v. at 660 those here is the extent 670 P.2d of the suspect’s knowledge concerning the likely P.2d factor is always at 508. No one deter subjects prospective Whether, scope analysis. ques- in that minative tioning. extent, important it is suspect Thus determine what a has been informed whether the were subject related to or is aware of the matter of the or general subject crimes matter about prior to its interrogation commencement is suspect anticipated interrogation, the which simply factor in the court’s one evaluation suspect or whether the led the circumstances, although may it total questioned that he would believe be about major be a or even a determinative factor interrogated one crime him but then Garrison, in some situations. Carter v. See, e.g., totally Car- unrelated offense. Cir.1981) 68, (4th (per curiam); 656 F.2d 70 Garrison, 70; v. ter United 656 F.2d at McCrary, 643 323, United States v. F.2d McCrary, States v. 643 F.2d 328-29. In (5th Cir.1981); United States ex rel. 328-29 connection, upheld past in the we have Fike, 563 F.2d 809, (7th Henne v. 813-14 specific the waivers because time of Brierly, 735, v. Cir.1977); Collins 492 F.2d interrogation the defendants knew “the (and Cir.) (en banc) (3rd see 738-40 at 741- cert, general the crime involved.” nature of denied, 43, J., Adams, dissenting), 419 the fact that defendants those cases had 877, 140, 42 116 L.Ed.2d not been informed before as Carter, (1974); 344, v. 296 State N.C. 250 specific they to the crimes with which 263, (1979); Goff, State v. S.E.2d 269 289 charged later not render their did waivers 473, 476-77, (W.Va.1982). 477 n. 8 S.E.2d People v. Casey, constitutionally infirm. recognize We 58, 1250,1252 61, (1974); 185 Colo. 521 P.2d how is difficult to discern a waiver of [i]t Weaver, 331, 335, 179 Colo. 500 knowing, rights intelligent could these be also 980, See Duncan P.2d 982-83 suspect voluntary where is total- People, 1029, v. 178 Colo. ly offense upon unaware of the Herrera, 633 (1972); v. questioning is based. cert, (Colo. denied (Colo.App.), A- of constitutional valid waiver Dixon, 1981); Commonwealth 475 Pa. occur in a vacuum. waiver does not [A] Goff, State v. (1977); A.2d to counsel to re- 477 n. 8. 289 S.E.2d at response partic- main to a silent occurs The federal district court Montana has involving particular ular set of facts rule that a adopted an absolute offense. The Miranda warnings giv- intelligent, Miranda rights can never be solely suspect make the aware en not suspect knowing voluntary is when also of conse- privilege, but suspected crime he is not “told of the foregoing privilege. quences of questioning having be- committed” before McCrary, 643 F.2d at United States Ellsworth, F.Supp. gins. Schenck v. omitted). likely It (footnotes seems 328-29 (D.Mont.1968). Pennsylvania whether to consult suspect’s that a decision demanding, less Supreme adopted a Court answering ques- attorney with an before absolute, that “a valid waiver still rule but seri- influenced tions will often be requires that sus- of underlying inter- the matter ousness of general have na- pect an awareness thing rogation. far different “It is a giving rise to the transaction ture. a traffic offense is forgo lawyer where Dixon, investigation.” Commonwealth counsel first to waive where involved than omitted). (footnote We 379 A.2d at 556 Common- at stake.” degree murder with stan- it to more consistent believe be Collins, A.2d 436 Pa. wealth v. validity of a governing the waiver to dards opinion). (1969) (plurality suspect’s under- the extent of the consider matter, standing subject and the to a considered crucial One factor often understanding, simply as of that validity source as to determination court’s totality suspect agents that the federal had factors the of circumstances sur- who City during him in rounding making just of arrested Kansas the a statement. We allegedly transaction that violated those firearms decline to elevate considerations into question him federal law would about a any rule that renders waiver absolute Colorado, that occurred in crime murder automatically interrogated the invalid when jurisdiction only in a distant but also not suspect has been informed the sub- purview the normal of the feder- outside of ject questioning prior matter of the to its Alcohol, al Bureau of Tobacco and Fire- commencement. totally unrelated to the transac- arms and Obviously, a most serious obstacle gave tion that rise to the arrest and inter- voluntary, to the establishment of a know Moreover, rogation. the federal crime that ing intelligent and interrogation, occasioned about presented suspect will be when the Spring cognizant he which when subject of the matter of totally unaware signed agreed the written waiver and to interrogation agrees at the time questions, represented relatively answer answer, questions. waive his degree matter than first mur- less serious remembered is that an What must be Although background experi- der. sources, many may come from awareness suspect ence of the is a further relevant explicit from a direct and state determining validity consideration officers, interrogating ment waiver, Pierson, any 670 P.2d at vary specific can from a that the awareness regard the record offers little with knowledge upon of the crime intelligence acquaintance questioning general under will focus to justice process, other than the the criminal standing subject matter in which the Spring fact had a criminal record. Thus, interrogators interested. an ex facts, it cannot Given these be said totality of the circum amination of the prosecution proving carried its burden of necessary deter proper stances is convincing by clear and evidence that mine, among things, other the extent of the voluntary, knowing in- Spring made a suspect’s subject of the matter awareness forego telligent decision to counsel and to investigation impact of this and the questions concerning the murder.5 answer awareness, awareness, or lack of court concluded that the district his constitution suspect’s decision to waive suggested topic “questions themselves rights. al Certainly, nothing inquiry.” about the Here, of an advisement the absence concerning questions the federal firearms questioned that he would be Spring’s past or about criminal crimes homicide, and the lack about the Colorado suggested could have record that at the time of any to conclude basis topic inquiry would soon be a Colora waiver, reasonably the execution of the According do homicide. to the district interrogation expected court, could have that the only by questions the exact it is subject, extend to that are determi anyone would had killed issue—whether undermining validity else, native factors whether he had ever been Colorado agents The ATF did not had a man named of the waiver. and whether he shot interroga their of Denver and thrown his advise that a Walker west body about the Col in a snowbank—that became tion would include subject inquiry. Spring's acquainted decision to with the prior homicide orado But, suspect fact that a answers rights and to an the mere waive his constitutional more, does not establish questions, no reason to without questions. Spring had swer Spring explicitly subject required before the to inform matter of 5. A contrast to the other questioned that he would be may Given be instructive. March 30 interview parking lot and surrounding Spring’s firearm transaction in the arrest the circumstances such an ad- interrogation, waiver obtained without subsequent it could not be and argued invalid. convincingly visement would be ATF that the May Statement waiver has occurred. 1979. that a valid 2. of Arizona, 384 U.S. at jail While in in Kansas City May on questions long These asked 1979, Spring gave a concerning statement Spring signed had the written after waiver the homicide to Detective Curtis of the agreed to and talk to the officers. In the County Moffat Department Sheriff’s context, agree the present we with Penn- Agent of Konkel the Colorado Bureau Supreme sylvania Court that Investigation. The gave Spring officers a Miranda advisement signed in an accused has the similar its essen- waiver “[o]nce given by tials the one the ATF on give he stating willing that is a state- above, Spring March and described ment, no longer it is efficacious that he again acknowledgment executed a written being questioned then be told what he is rights. and waiver of his In answer to the compulsive un- the about. force of questions, Spring acknowledged officers’ intelligent already has its waiver had accompanied Wagner that and Walker By this we do not mean to es- effect.” hunt, the that Wagner elk either he or per post-waiver se rule that no tablish suggested go that Walker the ravine into by police taken to inform the action elk, Wagner Spring to find an that told of the transaction involved can defendant flashlight in shine his the direction of ...; hold, do ever be effective we how- Walker, Spring holding that was the flash- ever, will that valid waiver not be Wagner Walker, light when shot that simply suspect found because a lacked Wagner emptied or the victim’s halt the presence of mind to interro- pockets, Wagner in that assisted gation and assert his constitutional dragging body Walker’s or ten feet five ques- asked rights the moment he was killed, from where was and that nature of crimi- tion that revealed the participated Wagner lying with in episode investigation. nal under Nor the whereabouts Walker afterwards. by case our view the altered And, according Curtis, Spring to Detective the fact that waiver form that he or had an told officers knew by signed expressly ad- [the accused] something might happen that to Walk- idea that she had the vised accused night. Spring did er that not tell Curtis questioning. call halt While to the knowledge Konkel that he had no that is to provision inclusion be com- Wagner going to shoot Walker mended, mitigate it little itself does evening com- own actions were or accompli psychological fait Wagner, pelled his fear of as written waiver. in his defense at trial. After offered Dixon, 379 A.2d at 557 Commonwealth read, completed, Spring questioning was omitted), quoting (footnote and citation pre- signed edited and a written statement Collins, 436 Pa. Commonwealth summarizing in- pared by Konkel (1969) (plurality opin- A.2d 163-64 terview. Dixon). ion) (emphasis added in suppress, motion to As of his reasons, conclude that the these For statement, May 26 other- argued heavy their burden People did meet of a valid product wise the advisement answers proving waiver, suppressed as the direct should be homicide were to the Colorado relevant illegally statement fruit obtained knowing voluntary, and intel- after a con- the district court March 30. Because rights. We ligent 30 was the statement of March cluded that obtained, appeals that the answers were it did illegally court of not consider May obtained and that district whether the statement illegally decide March 30 grant the defendant’s statement. by refusing to fruit erred May subsequently was of March 26 statement suppress the statement motion to trial, Spring later ceived echoed, explained Spring again advised of his supplemented and testimony. advisement identical to the one he re- his own interrogation on March ceived before his ruling Because its that the statement acknowledged he under- 30. obtained, illegally March 30 was sign any rights, but declined to stood People had appeals court of held that the consulting attorney. form an The without prove the statement the burden to leave, agents got up whereupon Spring Spring by the offi- obtained from Colorado agents stated that he would talk to the May not the “fruit of the cers on 26 was being present; attorney an how- without March poisonous tree” of the statement of ever, sign he would not the written ac- Colo, Lowe, at 475- People 30. v. See knowledgment and waiver form. On that This had not 616 P.2d at 123. burden basis, agents the interview. resumed People Spring, been met. People sought If the the admission 967. apparently began interrogation The with retrial, “the trial May statement on wide-ranging discussion of the where- of attenu- first the issue court must resolve explosives abouts of various firearms and of March ation from the tainted statement aware, Spring might along of which be 30.” Id. subjects. As of this dis- with related cussion, Spring was asked where he had People argue that if we pistol agents obtained a .22 caliber that the appeals that the state the court of with had seized from him at the time of his obtained, illegally as ment of March 30 was Spring replied that it had been arrest. decide, have, on the then we should gun gun. if he took the Walker’s Asked suppression made at the basis of the record said, body, Spring “I’d rather off Walker’s May 26 statement hearing, whether the Later, agents not talk about that.” March 30 state the direct fruit of the and, if Walker asked he had shot instead that the trial ment. We conclude Wagner had shot Walker. subsequently, if issue must resolve the attenuation Spring again replied, questions, To both appropriate stan application “I’d rather not talk about that.” At some evidence, People Briggs, dards to the see interview, willing point (Colo.1985), to hold with leave 709 P.2d 911 presenta to state that he had been Colorado hearing for the supplemental he, Wagner and Walker had if deemed neces 1979 and that tion of further evidence According riding together. been around sary the district court.6 Wactor, Spring “pri- also stated that Agent IS, July 3. Statement going into to Mr. Walker's down or he had obtained the .22 caliber ravine that guilty of Spring had been found After and, in pistol Mr. another Walker” violations, agents ATF firearms the federal testimony, portion of Wactor’s and Wactor interviewed Patterson getting “[Spring] did admit to Walker’s County in the July Jackson to flush gun away from him before he went pri- found that the Jail. The trial court Agent out of ravine.” Wactor deer conducting this inter- mary purpose [the] for Spring, also “Is it safe to assume asked view, apparently made known to purpose Wagner you, and Walker went out outset, informa- was to obtain Spring at you Wagner together and that concerning the whereabouts from him tion “Yeah, replied, explosives. came back alive?” of additional firearms say According to the you could that.” began, Spring was the interview When grinned laughed agents, Spring either or questioned about told that he would be saying while this. Walker homicide. regard rehearing, People petition for admissible without to attenuation. In their for issue, argument Oregon but the v. We elect not to address this the first time raise — Elstad, U.S.-, argument to the trial court are free to assert this 84 L.Ed.2d proceedings (1985), May on remand. in further makes the statement agents tran- recording

The record contains no not talk that.’ shifted Only script July interrogation. topics, IB interview other but returned brief, ing killing agents the of Walker. Both Dyett People, statement. v. Colo. that Spring stated testified that whenever reason, (1972).” 494 P.2d 94 Id. For that aspect did not talk he want to about some court that the concluded exercised murder, subject was of the Walker the right to silence as to concern- matters changed topic. Agent Wac- separate to a homicide, ing the the officers violated the questions tor testified the about that right by continuing question Spring that killing interspersed were not Walker obtaining Second, a statement. the wholly mat- questions unrelated with about again held court that was entitled to ters; contrary Agent gave evi- Patterson warnings the renewed Miranda when general mat- dence that conversation about began him agents question about the oc- ters unrelated to the Walker homicide murder, topic which not related to questions Walker’s curred between the purpose their stated for interview. death. at People 671 P.2d suppress The district court declined to July As of its find- the statement. the We conclude that statement stated, under- ings, “Spring the did court suppressed, although we should have been right the to answer stand that he had not given agree all of the reasons do not with questions, with and exercised that particular, In for appeals. the court of respect specific questions.” to several above, not we do the reasons discussed again Spring’s argument rejected court appeals’ adoption the approve of court not that waiver was valid because rendering any rule invalid per se prior to the that not advised interview an when defendant of Miranda homicide. questioned he would be about the Mi questions, without renewed swers con- The court concluded that advisement, subject about on a randa ques- cerning "ruse the homicide not in he was informed before the unwary person designed an tions” to trick conclude, however, that terrogation. We interview, time noted that at the record, when viewed the Colora- already had talked with light totality of the circumstanc the murder and do authorities about requirements es and charging information and warrant Arizona, support the court’s does not trial is- murder had been Spring with Walker’s July 13 finding Spring’s statement testimony Through sued. waiver of constitu the result of a valid July statement agents, portions of the rights. tional received in evidence subsequently were trial. Arizona, the United In Miranda v. pro- Supreme stated that the Court States appeals held that the The court of to be after a Miranda cedure followed in admit- error committed reversible indi- “If the individual advisement clear. two July for ting the any manner, any prior time to or cates First, appeals noted the court of reasons. wishes during questioning, began asking about that “when the silent, interrogation must cease.” answered, homicide, ‘I’d rather main answers, 473-74, (foot- questions at 1627 asked 384 U.S. at added). omitted; recog- say supports that the evidence emphasis We cannot note finding court’s ex- might refuse to an- district nize that an individual voluntarily ercised his to remain silent “with questions yet certain swer during respect specific questions,” and intelligently others to several decide to answer respect interrogation, and a that the waiver remained valid with single of a the course questions. of his to the other circumstanc- to all answers under such waiver established However, it may es be valid and effective. alone, For this reason the record does government forgotten must not be support finding that the the trial court’s demonstrate “heavy carries a burden” to proving by prosecution met its burden of voluntary. Miranda v. that the waiver is convincing the de- clear and evidence that Arizona, 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628. 384 U.S. at knowingly, intelligently fendant and volun- Fish, at 508. See also tarily waived his constitutional indicated in the defendant has Once and to have counsel remain silent way wish to answer a that he does not July 13 when he uttered the statement. interrogating question questions, the of- the court of that the We emphatic ficers have an affirmative failing suppress trial court erred in suspect is in duty to determine whether statement. against self-in- exercising privilege fact argued that The have not merely is re- respects crimination in all or this statement harm the admission of was ' questions. particular luctant answer error, obviously less and it cannot be con Colo, 477, Lowe, at 616 200 See the circumstances. sidered harmless under Colo, 123-24; People, 177 Dyett P.2d at v. Before a constitutional error can be con 372-73, Simply continu- 494 P.2d at 95. harmless, a court must be satisfied sidered along similar or even ing the the error beyond a reasonable doubt that satisfy rarely lines will unrelated jury’s not affect the ultimate resolution did And fact that quirements of Miranda. California, Harrington of the case. v. eventually by de- statement is made 1726, 250, 284 89 23 L.Ed.2d 395 U.S. valid fendant is not determinative. “[A] (1969); 386 U.S. Chapman California, presumed simply waiver will not ... be (1967); 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 87 S.Ct. in fact from the fact that a confession was 538-39, P.2d People, 678 LeMasters v. Arizo- eventually obtained.” (Colo.1984). The matters contained 1628; na, Peo- 384 U.S. at July generally the statement of were Pierson, at 776. ple v. evidence, assuming, of other cumulative Here, purpose, May that 26 statement evidence that the for this there is no However, the ad properly admitted.7 any effort to reaffirm ATF made particular of the statement mission at trial Spring’s his constitutional decision waive concerning gun, a Walker’s particu from he declined to answer after statement, by July fact added they make ef questions. Nor did lar trial, clearly prejudicial Spring. At both refusing by to answer fort to establish that Agent testi shooting Agent Patterson Wactor certain into Spring said he talked Walker fied that Walker, intend to exercise Spring did not in the be leaving his firearm behind van against self-incrimination privilege his A the ravine. went towards subject point that fore Walker from regard to the entire this evidence the jury might infer from to interro They simply continued forward. on the necessary premeditation answers to they received gate Spring until grounds that inten Spring on the homicide. Walker questions about so that Walker tionally disarmed Walker transcript equivalent Without Spring’s pri- himself. As protect could not wording of the sequence and showing the however, See noted, of an attenuation issue. the determination previously the admissibili- 7. As 2, above. dependent upon Part II B May ty is of the 26 statement mary night. no defense at trial was that he had next The trial court also refused to testify Wagner allow knowledge going to shoot as to statements by Wagner Knez, fact, made Mike evening, this added al- Walker that of Spring Wagner, friend circumstantial, though cannot con- be day shooting on the of the and also sidered harmless. plans for concerned the the elk hunt. The Accordingly, July of the admission statements, trial court excluded these con- error, and statement constitutes reversible cluding: for conviction must be reversed danger perceive risk I here as —the and, required, A new that reason. trial is it, [Spring’s attorney], Mr. Bratfisch is appeals ordered, as the the trial through this witness his own resolve the issue of court must attenuation concerning statements what was said in . People seek if the the introduction people, of other conversations is May 26 on retrial. stating not happening essence what is creating his mind but conversations III. discussing he—or conversations pre- Spring argues that the trial court which tend to have—indicate there telling vented him side was a corroborative effect from other story jury. scope of direct to the persons may to whatever have as been witnesses, including examination of wit- possibly mind I think is defense, generally mat- nesses for the clearly I misleading and think it’s hear- trial ter within the sound discretion of the in for say pur- and shouldn’t come People Reynolds, court. Colo. I pose. think the witness is entitled to (1978). However, say in his mind what his—was at that by a court in an abuse of discretion time. But I don’t think he’s entitled to de- restricting the direct examination of embellishing try it corroborate may compel fense reversal witnesses particular oc- upon conversations that Id. conclude that the a conviction. We hearsay which are and would con- curred unduly Spring’s own trial court restricted hearsay evidence. stitute although necessary not for testimony, it is argues Spring that these statements were error us to determine whether reversible hearsay, not as their relevant and were holding part in given our II. Be- occurred prove sought not to admission was again likely errors to occur cause the explain but to truth of the matters asserted ad- upon Spring, we elect to retrial i.e., mind, his innocent Spring’s state of questions briefly in evidentiary dress these elk in the hunt. participating motive opinion.8 is correct. Out- The defendant ruling occurred objected to first to prove not statements offered of-court sought explain why he and to when of the matter asserted but the truth of accompany them Wagner Walker to invited they explain the tend to fered because According Spring, hunt. to on the elk other than the state of mind someone hunting Wagner and shot went hearsay and should be declarant are before, (defi related 801(c) night deer the if relevant. See CRE admitted Burress, court “hearsay”); People The trial would this to Walker. nition of 150-54, 460, 146, 462-64 testify that Walker 515 183 Colo. allow Also, (1973). failure the defendant is entitled to being about their sponded by upset that, corroborating his tes Walk- own along because evidence him to invite mental timony his actions and state. Wagner included about Spring and upset, er was 165,167, Green, Colo.App. 38 hunting the See plans go elk him in their challenged either improp- that each of matters argues elude the trial court also likely that the to recur a new de- is not erly of two other limited examination err, witnesses, we decline to Becky did not Kopp district Michael fense record, further. these matters reviewing con- discuss Spring. After 880 839, (1976). 840 The fact that the eral to inform Spring that he was a

corroborative suspect this instance also in the Walker homicide is a suffi- testimony the form of by the de- his waiver of Mi- holding cient basis for simply fendant randa jury 30, is a factor for on March I invalid. deciding consider in weight give what disagree. that corroboration. The trial court should Law enforcement duty officers have no not exclude this properly evidence if under Miranda to inform a person in custo-

presented on retrial. dy charges being all investigated prior Garrison, questioning him. Carter v. Similarly, Spring argues that 68, (4th Cir.1981) (per curiam), 656 F.2d district testify court would not allow him to cert, denied, 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. Wagner as to what said to or to Carter, (1982); State v. L.Ed.2d 668 Spring’s hearing, others in compelled cert, denied, N.C. 250 S.E.2d Wagner to assist in concealing the 60 L.Ed.2d 1070 murder and telling to refrain from the com (1979); Israel, W. LaFave & J. Criminal plete story when first interviewed law (1985). Procedure All that enforcement going officials. Without into requires suspect is that the be advised that detail merits of individual rul silent, he has the to remain any- ings, we type conclude that evidence of this thing says against can and will be used is relevant and should be admitted on re court, him in that he has the to con- presented by trial if prop the defendant in lawyer sult with a lawyer and to have the er form. present during interrogation, and that if he cannot lawyer afford a one appoint- will be IV. Arizona, represent ed to him. Miranda v. given, For the reasons judgment 436, 467-79, 384 U.S. 1624- affirmed, court of and the As one court has stated: case is remanded to that court to be re- We have serious reservations about an turned to the trial court for pro- further interpretation of Miranda v. Arizona ceedings opinion. consistent with this ... which would require that before cus- interrogation begins, todial in addition to ERICKSON, J., dissents in and con- declarations, the mandated a statement part. curs in must be made as to the ROVIRA, J., joins in the dissent and con- nature investigation. crime under currence. That landmark painstaking- decision was ly specific listing the basic constitu- KIRSHBAUM, J., does participate. not rights police pro- tional which the must ERICKSON, Justice, dissenting part pound suspect ques- to a before he is concurring part: slightest tioned. Nowhere is there the respectfully I dissent II of the indication that there must be included a majority opinion. The appeals warning court of about the nature of the crime suspect voluntarily held that a cannot interrogation which has led to the confer- Miranda rights ence, waive his offense, unless he is in- penalty what the is for the formed of the crime about which he is to be what the elements of the offense consist questioned. of, sense, 671 P.2d and similar matters.... In a (Colo.App.1983). majority rejects The might all of these conceivably elements adopted by the rule absolute the court of “intelligent enter into an and under- suspect's and holds standing” rejection that a knowl- of an offer for the edge only counsel, of the crime is one factor to be simple assistance but the an- determining considered in validity the swer is that Miranda does not its ease, however, the In waiver. this go requires the terms so far. It that the court concludes that the failure of the fed- rights accused be advised of his so that decision, present. may remain silent and to have counsel make a rational necessarily express strong proof the one or one that an best Such Butler, long North Carolina v. validity. be reached after would its Indeed, may it painstaking Additionally, deliberation. at U.S. at 99 S.Ct. argued forcefully that a choice nothing suggests be in the record that presence forego defendant warnings given did not understand the police counsel at is almost him, the nature of his fifth amendment invariably unintelligent of ac- course rights, consequences waiving C., tion. It is not the sense of shrewdness Fare v. Michael rights. those 442 U.S. that Miranda speaks “intelligent” 707, 726, 2560, 2572, 61 L.Ed.2d in the tenor that waiver but rather was a He convicted felon who op- of his available individual must know experience police. had considerable with the deciding what he thinks best tions before by improper He was not “worn inter- down In particular his situation. this suits rogation lengthy questioning or tactics equated intelligence is not context by trickery or deceit.” Id. 99 S.Ct. wisdom. at 2573. (3rd 735, 738-39 Bierly, Collins 492 F.2d majority rejects nonetheless the find- cert, denied, Cir.), 95 S.Ct. 419 U.S. ings ground of the trial court on the sole (1974) (footnote 42 L.Ed.2d 116 was not advised that would omitted). citation questioned be about the Walker homicide. Here, Spring twice of his was advised view, a waiver of Miranda my In questioned Miranda he was before simply because should never be held invalid his at the time of on March 1985—first suspect is not informed or does in- immediately before the arrest and then matters that are know in advance of all also informed terrogation. Spring was subject investigation and will be the under question- stop that he had the majori- interrogation. The effect of the Thus, warnings given ing any time. to add to the Miranda warn- ty opinion is requirements of Spring exceeded the requirement dis- ings the Miranda. might be the possible close all crimes interrogation. practical dif- subject of Spring validly waived concluding In satisfying requirement ficulties March his Miranda rights on suspect, questioning Prior to obvious. totality properly considered informa- police may have insufficient under which the waiv- of the circumstances charges will ulti- Butler, what tion to determine made. North Carolina v. er was The nature of against him. 1755, 1758, mately be filed 369, 374-75, Pierson, upon may depend circumstanc- offense (1979); L.Ed.2d 286 police, such as whether to the es unknown (Colo.1983). The court may It record. suspect has a criminal aware of “was found occur, yet to such upon an event also turn silent, counsel to have to remain crime dies. the victim interroga- as whether stop interrogation, during Therefore, majority’s conclu- reject I time; responses and that tion at his Spring’s waiver of sion that voluntarily and intelli- freely, invalid sim- 1979 was rights on March findings should trial court’s gently.” The of all informed he was not ply because by appeal supported if on not be disturbed when he reviewed Pierson, matters that would be record. adequate by police. questioned 776. the trial court’s uphold support I would also to Here, ample evidence there is made suppress the statements Spring fusal to conclusion the trial court’s offi- enforcement law Spring to Colorado his Miranda rights. Prior to waived Spring was When May 1979. cers on signed a written ac- questioning, to wished authorities that the Colorado told of his knowledgment and waiver him, readily speak agreed to do so. orally his I.M.A.,

The officers advised INC., a Colorado rights, signed Petitioner, and he then a writ- corporation, acknowledgment and form. ten agreed that he told the officers INC., AIRWAYS, MOUNTAIN ROCKY the Walker homicide talk to them about corporation, Respondent. a California get it his chest.” because he “wanted to off No. 83SC260. day in the The interview was conducted jail room of the and lasted one hour Colorado, Supreme Court of thirty freely to minutes. talked En Banc. participation in the the officers about Jan. At no time did he refuse Walker homicide. Rehearing Denied request pres- Jan. answer Nothing in ence of counsel. the record the officers conducted the

indicates manner. At the

interview a coercive read, interview, Spring

conclusion of the

edited, signed pre- a written statement summarizing

pared one of the officers view, my In the trial court

the interview. given by

correctly found that the statement voluntarily, freely,

intelligently, proper after a Miranda ad- and waiver.

visement

Finally, majority I with the suppressing

the trial court erred 13,1979. by Spring July

statement made light cer-

In refusal answer questions regarding shoot-

tain the Walker then deter-

ing, the should have sought if

mined Walker invoke

against subject. self-incrimination on that Spring’s pur- do so renders

Their failure to inval-

ported waiver his Miranda

id. say that Justice RO-

I am authorized joins me in this dissent and concur-

VIRA

rence. notes Agent Wactor’s handwritten again process to the homicide. This placed It clear in into evidence. is not were repeated until the in- obtained an sequence questions concerning what criminating response.” People an- the Walker homicide were asked P.2d at 967. The court of swered, answered, what or not “[ojfficers also that who noted meet with a questions points the interview these any during refusal to make were asked. Nor can we tell attempted in-custody any, certainty questions, if what unrelated repeat permitted periodically proce- asked in concern- between finally until the dure accused makes a

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Spring

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Jan 13, 1986

Citation: 713 P.2d 865

Docket Number: 83SC145, 83SC155

Court Abbreviation: Colo.