State v. Howard

negligence only. to be tried in I would

hold, facts, danger these where the in product plaintiff-user

the use of the obvious, fully and where the claims of are limited to assertions that the

“defect”

manufacturer should have added devices to product

its protect to warn and the user

against danger, the obvious that strict lia-

bility nothing jurors offers confusion to but negligence

and that claim is to be jury.

submitted

KELLEY, (concurring part Justice in

dissenting part). in join

I in Justice concurring Simonett’s dissenting opinion.

PETERSON, Justice (concurring part in

and dissenting part). join concurring

I in the dissenting

opinion of Justice Simonett.

AMDAHL, (concurring Justice Chief dissenting part). join

I concurring dissenting

opinion of Justice Simonett. Minnesota, Respondent,

STATE of Wayne HOWARD, Appellant.

Donald

Nos. 81-735.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 4, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Oct. D. Goo-

Douglas W. Thomson Robert dell, Paul, appellant. St. identification prosecution’s firearms Gen., Gary Atty. Spannaus, Warren the bullets found concluded Paul, expert Gen., Jul- Hansen, Atty. St. Sp. Asst. fired in all likelihood scene were the crime Winona, for re- Gernes, Atty., County ius records from Llama firearm. Gun from a spondent. indicated store Coast Howard’s Coast Llama, were including a .45 guns, that five to Webber. transferred a friend of killing day after and Howard, police, called Murphy, Charles SCOTT, Justice. testi- Murphy to them. Monday, spoke on denial of partial appeal is an This police how that he described at trial fied the con- in the case of relief post-conviction him a had offered August 1976 Howard the first murder in appellant for viction of Howard. $4,000 to kill Shirleen total of judge denied degree. The trial of refused, period but over Murphy relief. The con- petition post-conviction messages that Murphy sent months Howard was conviction spiracy-to-commit-murder orig- his as renewals of interpreted could be offense. See as a lesser-included vacated Murphy. request inal Minn. 609.04 Stat. § individual of another learned Police we have been second time This is the purpose for the Howard contacted whom of a defend- review the conviction asked to Raymond wife. Police contacted killing his How- killing of Shirleen charged ant Howard, and Riniker, classmate of a former set out in first occasion is State ard. The Riniker August him on met with (Minn. 1980), where- Webber, 292 N.W.2d 5 Howard conversations with also related Bruce Web- the conviction of upheld in we money he offered to kill How- where was we affirm the conviction ber. In this case $1,000 Riniker gave wife. Howard ard’s hiring Bruce Webber man accused of In March of supply gun. and offered Howard. to kill Shirleen Howard to tell him he 1977 Riniker called his mind. changed was discovered had body Howard’s Shirleen How- husband, the Donald appellant her stopped testified that Riniker further Au- Howard), Saturday, (hereafter ard of 1977 store in the summer by Howard’s 13, 1977, at 9:15-9:20 gust approximately meeting with a third Howard and observed home. the Howard p.m. in the basement of left, Riniker person the third party. After gunshot two was found with Mrs. Howard was the individual Howard if that asked head, just been in her and she wounds wife. Howard to kill his supposed who was in the home was disturbed Nothing shot. man, paid the a resident said he had Bruce Webber was convicted missing. or residence), $2,000, Joliet, (Webber’s Illinois murder, Howard was committing the archery bow and a given him an and had hiring murder for degree convicted of first investigation the course of their gun. killing. Webber to do the telephone through police established calls were phone that numerous records body, wife’s How- discovering After his store and home to placed from Howard’s neigh- to the next-door ard took his children arrest. prior to Howard’s Webber’s home home, were called. The police bor’s and the Rinik- August Howard offered As late as searching began at 9:23 and police arrived killing. for the payment er a motorhome as and a .45 A .45 caliber bullet for clues. body. 23, 1977, arrangements near the were casing were found caliber On searched, and telephone monitor a The rest of the home was made to meeting subject Howard. A pamphlets on Riniker and some articles and between Rinik- day, arranged were found in for later marital difficulties bug the police to to allow days Two later er consented master bedroom. stationed them- Police then assisted conversation. the scene and returned to they where the Howard home selves outside investigation. the officers in their (1) Whether was denied his Howard told listened to the conversation. right fair due-process impartial to a Riniker: * * jury; (2) appellant’s whether the use of Butch, Listen, *. let me worry don’t against him at his trial violated happened. guy tell what This you —I under the Fifth and Fourteenth he had backed off. He didn’t you told to have counsel dur- Amendments up seem to want to do it. He called me (3) interrogation; custodial whether ing said, do you and he “Do still want to codefend- by appellant’s statements made said, I that?” and I “Yeah.” I said O.K. properly were admit- ant after the murder come home and that’s what I found. ted; (4) the evidence seized whether accident, planning supposed it was night appellant’s a search of home on to be an accident. I was so God damn murder violated Fourth gruesome. mad—and it was (5) rights; Amendment whether left, Riniker arrested How- After between taped conversation rights, ard. Police Howard of his advised Raymond properly Riniker was admitted. officers, essentially but he did talk with a new trial be- Appellant requests 1. denying any complicity killing. in the were aware jury cause some members of his 24, following police questioned day, August Webber, codefendant, had that his Bruce that again, Howard conversa- already convicted of the murder of been paying tion he confessed. He admitted Appellant Howard. contends that Shirleen $2,000 merchandise. He also Webber knowledge prevented jurors from this morning he preceding disclosed that on the appellant’s innocence because presuming package had a certified con- mailed Webber inescapa- of the codefendant the conviction $1,500 ring. a taining and diamond jury to believe that Web- bly invited 26 in August Webber was arrested on guilt. Re- guilt implied appellant’s ber’s Joliet, Illinois, received the just after he deny appel- spondent urges this court to money ring package containing argues that there was no request, lant’s investigation sent by Subsequent Howard. or, showing partiality by jury alter- personal revealed several between contacts right waived his to natively, appellant that Howard, including meeting a Webber and jurors who had been object seating 1977, 12, day on before the August exposed pretrial publicity. to murder. process consumed six and The voir dire 1977, October, Near the end of Howard fifty- which time days, one-half trial escaped County from the Winona Jail. He Each of the jurors were examined. one apprehended Nancy was with Brown in who indicated that jurors and alternates Louisiana on October conviction they knowledge of Webber’s had hiring knowledge Howard took the stand and denied their would testified appellant’s that his conver- case. Webber. His defense was influence their decision in passed Murphy appellant sations with and Riniker concern- out that Respondent points ing possessed were conducted what he killing jurors Shirleen Howard most of the who jest. reasoning applied, prejudicial in How- infor- regards patently same as now testified, cause or Jerry challenging ard to his conversations with for mation without killing challenge. his wife In the topic peremptory Sorenson where the a exercising ring ease, prospective and mon- fourth example, arose. He testified that conviction was ey juror, prior were sent to Webber because Webber the fact of the attorney his ad- and the explained by appellant’s had threatened him. He revealed missions to as fabrications motivated juror accepted by appellant. was a the streets keep desire to Webber off 282 Minn. Krampotich, In v. State from away family. his (1968), this court found a 163 N.W.2d 772 challenge jury to a presents following issues waiver of the appeal This a panel was aware of panel resolution: where Radetsky, v. judgment. United States However, Kram- See prior conviction. related 1976), cert. denied analogy (10th F.2d 556 Cir. as close an quite potich this case L.Ed.2d Appellant in respondent suggests. final im- prior to the made several motions have all those with jury

panelment concerning the use 2. The whether issue struck conviction knowledge of the Webber against him his appellant’s deliber- Krampotich for cause. Counsel Fifth and right under the trial violated his had jurors who sought ately to seat have counsel Fourteenth Amendments his an earlier trial favorably found interrogation during custodial clear- case; therefore, was much the waiver appeal. by the presented most difficult issue er. 23, 1977, August when was On there was arguendo, that Assuming, arrested, Rysavy him questioned Officer waiver, of es still falls short no concerning Appellant homicide. predisposed tablishing jury that the evasive, concerning no admissions and made Beier, In 263 N.W.2d convict. State killing of any involvement on 1978), said: (Minn. this court the end of the his wife. Near juror successfully challenge they In order to revealed conversation 26.02, subd. for cause under Rule had recorded the de- publicity, his arrest. involving pretrial just prior case Raymond Riniker an ad- implicat- more than elicit fendant must do that conversation potential juror from the mission himself in the homicide. ed pretrial publicity. to exposed has been the recorded Following the revelation of juror potential the The test is whether talk fur- to appellant refused to to demonstrates exposed publicity such transcript the portion The relevant of ther. can the that he the satisfaction of court set out below: is render an preconceptions set aside any you DH: I can’t tell more. verdict. impartial you You can’t or won’t? RWR: Webber, v. 292 N.W.2d Id. at 626. Cf. State I know actual- DH: I can’t —’cause don’t 5, as it (Minn. 1980) (pretrial publicity 12 ly who done it. venue). jurors were In this case the affects transpired. me what You RWR:' Tell admonished concern repeatedly tested and you if me the store realize tell whole [sic] in Bei impartiality. It was noted ing their involve all the going yourself to you’re 627, the trial er, “[sjince that 263 N.W.2d at that I the evidence we’ve you more. told jur of three testimony heard the court the you’ll agree I think that accumulated and demeanor, he was in observed their ors and fairly good. done we’ve we to decide position than are a better say anymore— I I better DH: don’t think telling truth when they were the whether attorney. I have till an knowledge of the testified that their they Do want to our conversa- you RWR: end think charges affected their other had not tion now? ing.” to, you as long DH: I’ll talk as want but v. Appellant’s citation Irvin to Dowd, 717, 1639, L.Ed.2d 81 6 U.S. S.Ct. Well, just you didn’t you RWR: said (1961), helpful argument to his not say anymore you want to till (eight facts egregious because the of Irvin attorney. jurors the twelve believed the accused guess any Well I I won’t make DH: this sharp to guilty) stand in contrast conversation. If, here, jurors their case. indicate Do recall when we first start- any preconceived you to no RWR: intention set aside you your rights, I tions, ed and advised and demonstrate satisfaction so, could thing you stop to said to judge they trial are able do last I —we our conversa- talking anytime its own lightly this court will not substitute procuring this that vation for you’d just say killing. tion if so. Is de- $1,500 sending time? scribed Webber and a dia- ring wrapped magazine. mond in a This so, DH: I guess yeah. intercept pack- information led to You want to RWR: You think it is. age and time their arrest of Webber accord- Don, just so right, think on it. All giving ingly. Howard also admitted Web- anything I have the word or last —do guns ber and other merchandise. anytime lied to you you feel that I’ve during our conversation? Appellant strenuously argues that guessing. you’re DH: I think all of the made the Au by the officer After some further comments gust suppressed 24 interview must be be evidence, concerning strength of their cause there was no valid waiver on his ceased. interrogation of the to counsel which he had in two officers day, August next previous day.1 voked on the Resolution of cell. One of the officers went to question this interpretation turns on that: hearing testified at the omnibus Supreme United recent States Court’s deci I I interested explained very that was Arizona, sion in Edwards v. getting regard more information (1981), 68 L.Ed.2d 378 S.Ct. trig- person actually pulled application holding of the Edwards ger, that I was concerned and personally the facts of this case. investigation our was concerned that this quickly One sub-issue can be resolved. person was still on the loose somewhere parties expend Both considerable effort safety and that I was concerned with the briefing question retroactivity his fami- security of his children and In a v. opinion, Edwards. recent State ly, and the officers involved the inves- Brown, (Minn. 1982), 317 N.W.2d 714 this tigation, witnesses involved unequivocally court declared that Edwards hopefully

investigation, and ask[ed] given applica- only prospective is not to be willing give he would be us some infor- tion, merely because the case confirms Mi- investigation. mation to assist in the Arizona, randa U.S. partici- point appellant agreed At that 16 L.Ed.2d 694 pate tape-recorded question-and-an- in a the Rysavy swer session. asked Officer day on one that he police Edwards told questions began by reviewing appel- and attorney making before “want[ed] rights. lant’s Miranda deal,” jail. taken to On the and then was * * * Rysavy: youDo understand all of morning day two detectives came to see those, Don? A Edwards and asked to talk to him. de- Yeah, why Howard: don’t I have an at- that the tention officer informed Edwards him, torney here now? detectives wished to talk to to which he did not want to replied Edwards Ah, you? you would Rysavy: Why don’t anyone. guard “The told him that talk to present during ques- rather have one our ‘he to talk and then took him to meet had’ tioning? * * at with the Edwards 451 U.S. detectives.” Well, ah, not, guess Howard: no I *. 479, then 101 at 1882. Edwards S.Ct. that he did not appellant At trial testified implicated himself in police talked to and attorney at the time he think he needed an question. the crime in During this questioned August on 24. found Ed- hiring Supreme The Arizona Court appellant interview admitted Webber to remain right to kill wife. discussed his moti- have waived his He also wards to Appellant presented Appellant suggests within 12 hours of his there was im- also delay magistrate proper delay presenting in view of him arrest. That was reasonable to a prosecutor to draft and that the had after his arrest. This contention has no merit. fact 4.02, 5(1), requires prepare complaints. Minn. R. subd. two murder Crim. P. presentation no later than 36 hours after arrest. 222 1885, case recently affirmed our own during cus- and have counsel silent State, reversing, of Muhammed v. 316 N.W.2d 572 interrogation.

todial 1982). (Minn. noted that Supreme Court United States initially after held that “although we have However, assuming, arguendo, even rights, being of his Miranda advised police question it was error validly waive his himself may accused August 24 where did appellant on * * *, interrogation, rights respond conversation, it must next not initiate that addi- indicated strongly has Court preju determined whether the error was necessary when the are safeguards tional that if merely dicial or harmless. We hold Id. 451 asks for counsel.” U.S. accused committed, that error was harm error was 484, then 101 at 1884. Court S.Ct. in the context of this case. less safeguards, two additional described evaluating when a con The standards for one delineated as follows: stitutional error be found harmless accused, that an such as We further hold evolution since undergone have considerable Edwards, his desire to having expressed LaFave, the mid-1960’s. W. Search and See counsel, through police only deal with the clear, Seizure, 11.7(e) (1978). It is none § interrogation by subject to further case, theless, see except in the rare until counsel has been the authorities 18, California, 23 and Chapman v. 386 U.S. him, unless the accused made available to 824, 8, 8, 827 and n. 17 L.Ed.2d n. communication, further himself initiates whether or not (1967), question 705 “the po- with the exchanges, or conversations harmless cannot a constitutional error was lice. considering the error in be answered 484-85, Id. at at 1884-85. S.Ct. Estelle, 616 F.2d Harryman isolation.” “ “clearly, Respondent acknowledges that 870, 1980). necessary to (5th Cir. ‘It is rule,” that rule then Edwards stated a new review the facts of the case and the evi being right that once the to counsel has dence adduced at trial’ to determine invoked, been a waiver of that can unlawfully effect of the admitted evidence only occur the initiation of holder of the other evidence adduced at trial ‘upon ” case, right. In this Officer Siebert defense,’ id., upon the conduct of the urged to talk in the interests of Connecticut, quoting Fahy v. protecting safety security of his 11 L.Ed.2d officers, children, family, and wit- approach We have endorsed this Watts v. meeting nesses. conversation was State, (1981) (overruled 305 N.W.2d and, therefore, by appellant initiated grounds by on other State v. Hatch was in violation of Edwards if er, (Minn. 1982). 322 N.W.2d 210 “expressed had his desire to deal with the case, In this before statement police only night counsel” the be- through direct evidence fore. Edwards at 101 at 1884. S.Ct. prior attempts by appellant of numerous to Respondent contends that hire others to kill his wife. Police also had clearly telephone showing did not assert his to counsel records numerous con- express nor did he a desire to deal with tacts between and Webber. Fur- agree. ther, In police only through appellant’s counsel. We the officers had records of response Rysavy’s specific ques selling guns, including to what Officer store’s several tion on August appellant stated that he was believed to have been the murder “guessed” attorney Finally, that he did not want an had a weapon, to Webber. present. direct taped ap- also confirmed conversation between Riniker and import appel- examination at trial that he didn’t believe the clear of pellant where he an the attorney present needed 24th. lant’s statements was that he had hired Appellant’s was not the In the face of the request counsel someone to kill his wife. clear, unequivocal request evidence, discovery kind required overwhelming of the Edwards, by 451 at 101 at had was a minor pay-off U.S. a been mailed

223 against appel- already case committed in permit to the state’s order to addition the hearsay use of made by lant. statements co-con- spirators. Id. at 69 S.Ct. at 718-19. the recently open possibility We left argues is, however, Respondent that there a might confession improperly an admitted body of law which substantial case holds rule, subject to the harmless error see State integral when act connected with Miller, (Minn. 1982). This v. 316 N.W.2d the objective of conspiracy main the re- proper application a of that case for undone, mains conspiracy remains alive. rule. respondent support position, of its cites 24, 1977, morning 3. On the of case, Saling, a California People Cal.3d Joliet, Illinois, police officers Fred Hafner Cal.Rptr. 698, P.2d 610 spoke Bruce Fitzgerald and William with presented That case a murder-for-hire situ- This took Webber Illinois. analogous case, ation this the state after arrest but place before offering co-conspirator statements of á information of confession reached the days made three after the murder. The During officers or Webber. the conversa- California court statements, admitted gave exculpatory tion Webber a number of reasoning: explanations questions. the officers’ It has long been the law this state were later explanations disproved These conspirator’s that a statements are admis- objected counsel Appellant’s trial. against sible his co-conspirator when relating officers’ Webber’s statements conspiracy made and in fur- trial, hearsay. on the of trial basis * * therance thereof The conspiracy *. the statements not properly court found comes usually to an when end the sub- 801(d)(2)(E). hearsay under Minn. R. Evid. stantive crime for the co-conspira- which A hearsay being statement if: “The tors are tried is either attained or * * and is defeated *. It against party statement is offered a is for the trier of * * * considering unique a by coconspirator statement made a circum- fact — and the purpose a stances nature and party of course and in during the further- conspiracy of each case—to determine Appellant ance of the Id. conspiracy.” precisely when the conspiracy has ended contends that failed to show that the state * * * Particular circumstances Webber’s were made in further- well where the disclose situation con- conspiracy. ance will be have spiracy deemed to extended by The exculpatory statements made beyond the substantive to activities crime Webber were to avoid designed detection by the con- contemplated and undertaken his relationship killing, and the objectives spirators pursuance * * goal, with the * presumably, of insuring conspiracy. remaining payment expected would Clearly the money Murphy offered still be collected. The answers were de killing his wife motivated defendant signed promote the common good Jerry participate Carnes to conspirators, which meets the con broadly money plan, and transfer of strued requirement. furtherance Unit See objectives one its main as far as de- Overshon, ed States v. (8th F.2d 894 Cir. concerned. fendant Carnes were 1974). Kidd, See also State v. 239 N.W.2d payment to either defendant or Since (Iowa 1976). yet Carnes occurred time of the conversation between Carnes and question next is whether state- Jurgenson only three after the mur- days ments of Webber were made the der, Jurgenson’s to Carnes pendency of the conspiracy. The rule ex- being were as made admissible States, pressed Krulewitch v. 336 United conspiracy. 440, 716, 69 U.S. 93 L.Ed. (1949), 790 is that courts uncharged conspir- will not find 703, Id. Cal.Rptr. 103 500 P.2d at 615 aimed avoiding acies crime (emphasis added). detection of a 224 Seizure, (1978); and and Search 11.4 at 620-28 Saling position is sensible § State, 603, separate Clough concealment see also v. 92 Nev. apply

we it here. A (1976), P.2d has conspiracy is not created contravention received mixed Krulewitch; instead, LaFave, supra. of reaction. Some commenta- of dictates “valuable, conspiracy regard to recognition logical a that tors rule as a there is yet uncompleted principle,” constitutional murder for a fee was LaCount & Gírese, Rule, traveling Discovery” The “Inevitable while of that fee was Exception to the Evolving Constitutional through the mails. Rule, Exclusionary Albany L. Rev. discovered his wife’s 4. After (1976), others suggest while 13, 1977, August evening on the of body only encourage police shortcuts rule “can to call the neighbor his next-door asked readily evidence be more whenever police into admitted the police. Appellant means,” illegal by legal than obtained accompa- they home when arrived and his Note, 74 L. Rev. Colum. preliminary on their search of his nied them basement. Later was asked to are Ultimately, persuaded we not leave, a search of the police conducted ground on this because even if the reverse and, The house was searched entire house. error, of the evidence was admission bedroom, nightstand in a in the master a error is harmless. The fact that blessing magazine articles patriarchal reading or his wife had been literature on were dealing problems with marital found. relatively insignifi marital difficulties is a sought suppressed These items were to be piece cant of evidence when viewed in the as the of a warrantless search that products totality of the of the evidence. context a scope of the search of proper exceeded Finally, appellant contends that murder scene. between him taped phone Arizona, Appellant Mincey relies on Riniker not have Raymond self and should 57 L.Ed.2d recognizes that Appellant been admitted. (1978) Mincey rejected a support. permits police the law in this state moni “murder exception scene” created party if one to the conver tor conversations Arizona Supreme requirement Court to the 626A.02, consents. Minn. Stat. § sation showing exigent circumstances order 2(c) (1980), provides: and (d) subds. justify the warrantless search of a home under sec- (c) not be unlawful It shall where a homicide has place. taken How- person for a 626A.01 to 626A.23 tions ever, distinguishable this case is from Min- intercept a acting of law to under color cey respect. in one critical Appellant con- communication, or, where such wire oral police, sented this search. called the or person party to a communication home, and, invited them into his it may parties one of the to the communication reasonably be inferred from the testimony, given intercep- to such prior has consent expected and desired that search tion. and other evidence. weapons (d) It shall not under this be unlawful course, scope focuses on the Appellant, chapter person acting for a under consent, the consent to arguing color of law to or oral intercept a wire the drawers in the did not include person search communication where such is a response, the state upstairs bedroom. one party to the communication or where these articles would has position parties to the communication takes given prior interception “inevitably been discovered” consent to such have exclusionary intercepted excepted from the unless such communication is therefore committing any crimi- body purpose was discov- for the days after rule. Two key nal or tortious act in violation of the appellant gave ered home, and on constitution or laws United States invitation to his open any purpose form. The or of state or for the signed 24 he a consent-to-search LaPave, rule, committing any injurious other act. see discovery” “inevitable Raymond morning, 9:30, Appellant seeks to raise Riniker’s came police jail to the in police investigating reluctance to aid his to interrogate again him. clearly indi- argues friend to a that he that such level cated that he did not wish to be interroga- only misgivings Riniker’s could have been ted, but the detention officer nonetheless overcome duress or by improper coercion. took him to the police, stating that Edwards support appellant’s po- The record does not “had to” talk police. with the sition. of the record leads us reading Our case, In this defendant Howard is in a consent appears conclude that Riniker’s markedly different posture. Howard was freely unequivocally giv- to have been unsophisticated neither nor indigent but en. a presumably acquainted business man Therefore, the reasons described lawyers. and accustomed to with dealing It above, we affirm the conviction. appears that he had used the available Affirmed. opportunity to retain It counsel. is clear portion this from of the trial transcripts KELLEY, J., part in took no the consid- did not wish counsel: eration this or decision of case. Q 24th, Turning August day PETERSON, (concurring special- Justice Mr. Rysavy you, you interviewed do ad- ly)- mit you deny or do if were you asked The this critical issue in case is whether a Mr. Rysavy you whether or not wanted ground new on the trial should be ordered an attorney. to a fair trial right that defendant’s A He asked I an attorney. me if wanted violated the admission into evidence of during Q his a you deny confession obtained custodial Do saying admit or no to police presence interrogation without him.

counsel for defendant. A I didn’t think I needed one—no. I agree that did not make defendant transcript police interrogations of both clear and unequivocal request for counsel abundantly any makes clear the absence of interrogation the initial on and, indeed, atmosphere coercive demon- preceded challenged which interro- restraint, bor- strates commendable gation in the morning latter on solicitude, dering dealing with defend- in August 24. A reading typewritten ant. transcript of taped interrogation of Au- particular facts This assessment of the gust 23 seemingly indicates such request, interrogations and circumstances of these but listening garbled tape itself dis- is, except for the initiation aspect of closes nuances of equivocal hesitation and in harmony interrogation, second tone of voice persuade me otherwise. Edwards v. Ari opinion Court’s particular point my separate state- understanding -at of it least with the zona that, ment of views is notwithstanding the concurring opinion of articulated in the pointed language of Justice White in Ed- Powell, Rehnquist Justice Justice which Arizona, wards White, majority opin Justice joined. (1981), 68 L.Ed.2d 378 forbidding po- ion, wrote in part: lice-initiated interrogation subsequent to a request counsel, the facts of this case It is our cases that reasonably clear under are so distinguishable from those in Ed- waivers of counsel must not be vol- wards as not to foreclose a valid waiver untary, but must also constitute know- even were it to held that Howard had relinquishment ing intelligent or made an unequivocal request for counsel. privi- abandonment of a or known lege, a in each depends matter which case Edwards, defendant ‘upon particular initial interview facts and circum- night unequiv- made an case, ocal request for counsel. On the following surrounding including stances read opinion can be Perhaps the Court’s conduct and background, experience, doc- established departing as not from of the accused.’ omitted.] [Citations quoted formulation Accepting trine. 482-3, at 1883-84. 101 S.Ct. 451 U.S. at (i) above, identifiable: questions two are conclusion of sound the [H]owever ‘interrogation’ was there in fact [citation voluntariness state courts as to the (ii) ‘initiate’ omitted], did the be, may neither Edwards’ admission course, is, questions it? Each of these Supreme trial court nor the Arizona confes- admissibility of a relevant whether Ed- to focus on Court undertook case, clear example, In this it is sion. right to counsel wards understood his cell was taken from his that Edwards relinquished knowingly intelligently subjected to renewed against his will and * * * it. interrogation. Whether this is described ini- [Although we have held after interrogation or in police-'initiated’ as rights, his Miranda tially being advised of way, clearly question- other it was some validly himself waive his may the accused incompatible ing under circumstances interrogation rights respond [cita- voluntary waiver of the funda- with a omitted], strongly tion the Court has indi- right to counsel. mental safeguards cated that additional are nec- will be as clear as this But few cases counsel; the accused asks for * * * essary when one. when an accused and we now hold that 489-90, at 1887-88. Id. at have counsel has invoked his Who ‘initiated’ a conversation interrogation, custodial waiver, question relevant to the but it es- right cannot be valid waiver of that qua inquiry. is not the sine non to the that he re- showing only tablished question The ultimate is whether there custo- sponded police-initiated to further knowing was a free and waiver of counsel interrogation even if he has been dial interrogation before commenced. further hold rights. advised of his We opinion nothing If the does Court’s accused, Edwards, having that an such as principles, more than restate these I am po- with the expressed his desire to deal join it. I hesitate to agreement counsel, subject lice only through only appears because of what opinion interrogation by further the authorities undue, undefined, emphasis to be available to until counsel has been made ‘initiation.’ single on a element: him, initiates unless the accused himself majority Id. at 101 S.Ct. at 1888. communication, exchanges, further or respond to this al- opinion directly did not police. conversations with the reading. ternative 484-5, Id. at 101 S.Ct. at 1884-85. with this court’s alter- My final concern is Justice Powell concurred in the court’s even if the confession opinion native judgment but join opinion, did not in the second, interro- obtained at the counsel-less “because not sure what it means” [he was] impermissible, gation constitutionally (id. 1887),1 writing: was, beyond a reception its into evidence In view of the emphasis placed on ‘initia- doubt, prejudice. without reasonable tion’ omitted], I find the Court’s [citation is that the face of the stated reason “[i]n opinion unclear. If read to create a new overwhelming evidence defendant’s [of per rule, se requiring inquiry a threshold had been discovery pay-off that a guilt], precisely opened any who conversa- was a minor accomplice mailed Weber] [to tion against appel- between an accused and state offi- addition to the state’s case * * * cials, with the agree. appears I cannot lant.” This inconsistent me,” said, enough Burger Burger, concurring Justice “and on Chief Justice likewise judgment, Supreme of Arizona erred based his concurrence on this record the Court resumption interrogation holding fact that when Edwards told the officer that that the * * voluntary speak product he did not wish to of a waiver to the detectives he was told the officer “that he had to.” “This 451 U.S. at 101 S.Ct. at 1887. Caldwell, court’s opinion State v. 1982), (Minn.

N.W.2d 574 in which a new Minnesota, Respondent, STATE of granted trial was the convicted defendant expert opinion because inadvertent testi- SALDANA, Appellant. Camilo mony incorrectly identifying fingerprint No. defendant, as that of 81-549. notwithstanding that, acknowledgment may that it well Supreme Court of Minnesota. upon retrial, will prove the other evidence Aug. sufficient my to convict him. view de- fendant directly Howard’s confession link-

ing Weber, his accomplice, with the murder

and making possible interception

pay-off police authorities, was no less linking

critical than the evidence defendant

Caldwell with the location of the crime. It here, there, be said as it was that a

jury, evidence, absent such “might” have

reached a different result. Id. at 584r-588. opinion court’s that “to reiterated allow

factually strong cases to erode such a basic process] right deny is to the existence

[due right.” Id. grant at 592. The of a

new trial in Caldwell was based only upon this

court’s supervisory powers;

appeal we are concerned with a more seri-

ous issue of constitutional dimension.

AMDAHL, Chief Justice (concurring spe-

cially).

I concur in majority opinion

write special because the concurrence majori- Justice Peterson asserts that “ * * * ty opinion appears inconsistent with

the court’s opinion in State Caldwell * * *.” It seems to me there can be no comparison,

valid inconsistency and thus no

between admittedly testimony false on a

fact of such import basic as the defendant’s

fingerprints tying him to the locale of the

crime, evidence, here, the truth of

which questioned.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Howard

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Aug 31, 1982

Citation: 324 N.W.2d 216

Docket Number: 48620, 81-735

Court Abbreviation: Minn.