*1 257 P.2d v. LINDEMUTH. STATE
No. 5223.
Supreme Mexico. Court Newof
April 9, 1952. *2 Nohl,
Frederick Albuquerque, L. ap- for pellant. iMartinez, Atty. L. Gen., Walter R.
Joe Kegel, Atty. Gen., Asst. appellee. for SADLER, Justice. appeal prosecuted by
This the defend- ant secure reversal of a conviction suffer- County ed him at Bernalillo aas result of which he was sentenced penitentiary the state for life. subsequent The trial and conviction of- finding grew out near defendant 16, -1948, Albuquerque August on decomposed body partially young of a wom- identified as Lucille an later Ramirez. employed County nurse was a at She Hos- Modesto-, California, pital and had come- Albuquerque where her father resided arriving July 22, 1948, the evening on seeking brother, to locate Luis her Ramirez telephoned had he was in who her trouble. court, had she upon where She went to a tourist primarily relied The claim error her brother the defendant grows learned the defendant reversal out night, 10:30 o’clock admission in rooming, about evidence made of three or confessions was seen to statements brother absent found the Albuquerque following his return few defendant a minutes talk home, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, carried her which had there. leave in a taxi charged he had been arrested disappeared. then She dep- the murder of the deceased. Sheriff’s body lying discovered When journeyed Hay Slaughterbeck uties north of half a mile Central back about its and.re-, Pennsylvania to get the accused Grande, Avenue, near Rio west of and turn Mexico. He waived him to New by underbrush about six feet in concealed during extradition at various times An examination disclosed bullet height. trip, consumed four return about death, wound, to cause back sufficient days, questioned and a half head, large jagged hole the left charge; officers the murder concerning temple marking Clothing exit of bullet. many making conforming admissions *3 at time her by deceased of death worn respects material the written con- with disarray, with appeared in a state of her fessions later obtained. feet n ground some fifteen panties on the deputies the two The and men- accused away. Albuquerque tioned arrived in on the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, from trip return Shortly defendant was thereafter the ' p.m. day, the about fifth which 2:00 of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, arrested in Saturday. placed was in was on He a cell suitcase, pin town. nurse’s his home A her county jail in at once. an the About hour key deceased, case, belonging and all taken later from his cell to he was the possession, were found in his and a wrist attorney of district in county office the the belonged also 'her was watch which questioning. for house The following city shop the found in that at a where de- present: newspaper reporter, A dis- addition, pawned fendant had it. attorney Ralph Brown, M. trict assistant baggage it tag with her name on which Harry attorney Robbins, district D. district in had been on her suitcase was found attorney’s investigator Henry Espinosa, Albuquerque hotel room defend- the (had Hubbell, Slaughterbeck sheriff Harold and time, occupied register- ant for a after Hay, Dunlap, and Mrs. Helen K. a stenog- Ramirez,” ing night as “TecO' the after she Albuquerque. arrived in rapher the “Teco” was in the office of the district attorney nickname the in stenographer taking defendant. acted as who down by the and saw the brother shoot and kill his sister defendant the asked questions the body her back into drag answers and the bushes attorney district assistant seen; would not be broth- thereto. made money, had taken her wrist watch and er was defendant interrogation The money and had him. He divided preliminary few him a asking begun also detailed other At incriminating facts. employed for usually kind questions of the point questioning ended re- and a his as such «identification purposes of Dunlap, cess was taken while Mrs. the dis- years), residence, (18 age name, place of attorney’s stenographer, trict transcribed conducted It like. and the date of birth lengthy question- *4 of the defendant questioning statement, Saturday more evening, taken on Au- After mother, and the of gust 28, 1948, admitting father state guilty his that while as to health, etc., questioner gradually presence the knowledge through at scene of the their and point the case secured sharing crime and the came a division of the accompanied money body deceased, that he taken from the confession his place killing brother, Ramirez, sister to the her Luis brother and accused firing sister, claiming Accordingly, and soon after the begin- killed his shot that the -fatal Obviously, ning talks with shooting. sup- defendant after have witnessed the per deputies that, evening, the had of what statement confronted dissatisfied him with the fact that watch had Slaughterbeck transpired, deputies Hay and been Harrisburg. found It jail was then that further at questioned the defendant pencil paper, he asked for a and say- some following county court house ing he wanted to write his father and moth- Sunday, being Au- evening, and afternoon er a They gave pencil letter. him a and inter- During course of this 29th. gust paper some and he was returned to his cell. from the de- clothes taken rogation the In about an hour they he sent for them and discovery its following body ceased’s upstairs went where he handed them finger- to the defendant in the exhibited they letter and asked that mail it to his county the fourth floor of print room on father and They they mother. told opposite jail house It cells. serv- would hand it to the district attorney the deputy Slaughterbeck. for an office ed as day following up and it say to him to 29th, on the talks with defendant whether not, it would be mailed or as it Sunday, began around 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock later Then, was. the defendant said: in the afternoon were carried on from “Now, don’t ask me questions, time, though constantly, time to until leave me alone and will write out the deputies supper left before their for facts in this case.” They respective homes. returned to They gave pen him paper and county jail supper after evening that time presence and in the of the officers talks with further defendant. Here it statement, wrote plaintiff’s out Ex- should be said that enroute to Albuquerque hibit own handwriting signed Pennsylvania from the defendant had stat- signature the same. His 'witnessed deputies ed to brother, deceased’s deputies Hay Slaughterbeck. Ramirez, possession Luis was in of her statement, It was in this entirely written if watch and that would check the in defendant’s own and in 'his handwriting pawn shops on South First Street in Al- words, that killing own he admitted buquerque they would find the watch. taking purse, deceased 'her $100 meantime, however, they had been ad- well, removing ring, and as her watch and vised officers Harrisburg, Pennsylvan- personal fewa other articles from her ia, the watch had been located in body. pri- The statement also related that pawn shop there. toor the homicide deceased called *5 after morning town when saw him the her and occupied by defendant the room
at recited killing This statement also Bar her. La Fonda of a cabin back brother and mother that he had told his father night hour on Albuquerque a late at day that before in the them the letter to 1948; announced she July 22, that going to take girl he did not kill the and her brother searching for she feel the blame —this in to make them order de- giving left, after finding him absent better over the matter. broth- for the her hotel name of fendant the thereafter, shortly, benefit; er’s the-signature and Following of defendant at her deceased contacted had defendant signa- those of the witnesses to his two taking pretext of her and, on the hotel own accord and ture the defendant of his uncle of the latter’s home at signed the brother longhand wrote out in and notion Road, her to the had lured North Ute following on statement: her. killed and there her death scene Aug. “The statement I made on p. 10:30 correct state- 30th, at m. Monday, August day, The next ment.” another still signed and made defendant consisting of one typewritten statement Having heard the witnesses on a voir plaintiff’s form, known as page examination, in narrative judge dire found the cer- up changing and 30, clearing statements, plaintiff’s Exhibit three Exhibits former statements. force, in the threats, two tain details were the result it, again he was taken Preliminary giving reward, hope concluded coercion attorney where district voluntarily given freely the office were and ad- present his first on statement those them in chief claim all mitted evidence. The gathered. It appeal Saturday once more of error arises from this were on Dunlap, ruling of the trial court. Counsel for de- sten- Helen K. was witnessed argue great vigor fendant earnest- attor- the office of the district ographer ness that court should have held on ad- typed by one Esther it and ney who facts, on mitted adduced cross examination it, again ad- the defendant In Jiminez. issue, the state’s main on this witnesses throwing slaying and told of mitted the written confessions were involun- distance out gun used a short away the by hope tary because induced of reward in- Louis, as he rode a bus toward of St. spired by promises leniency, and as well Pennsylvania, follow- Harrisburg, home at persistent questioning under conditions acquit- ing slaying. also statement amounting to force coercion. Ramirez, brother, ted the deceased’s Luis contentions, therefore, any part slaying in the and admitted he had The defendant’s charged even him that his was in are in character. First it is never told sister dual 263- upon so other length case, call questioned he was at such trip Harris- to rule as a matter of law that constantly the return Albuquerque, involuntary written confessions burg, Pennsylvania, go jury? It and not entitled physical torture. our amounted to a form of *6 opinion, practically it did not. Now for the reasons pointed four out that on which returning from that days consumed in rests. half were days only were two Harrisburg, whereas No serious contention is made that the also told that go needed to there. We are adequately defendant was not advised of de- foully taken from smelling clothes rights, any his constitutional both before him and to were exhibited body ceased’s questioning began following his return to room small kept proximity in a such Albuquerque preliminary and also as a to he questioning that as a result during the interrogation enroute there plain- known as gave the written statement Pennsylvania. from The form of the warn- claim tiff’s Exhibit So much 29. for ing given by attorney, the assistant district physical coercion. as it relates to practically beginning at the of the first questioning Albuquerque, session of error, phase this claim On the other as follows: reward, implied prom- hope it is said point “At this I must under the law immunity operation of law ises of arise you your instruct to rights as what are. on the defendant on what the officers told Under Constitution of the United - Albuquerque from Har- long drive back to you any- do States not have to tell us substance, Pennsylvania. risburg, In you thing if don’t want to. You ’have tell always better to was told it was right lawyer. Now, to have a men- truth, and several instances you you tell willing to us whatever charged with of where defendants tioned know about this matter at this time? offenses had told the truth less serious n Yes, A. sir. leniently; one instance of been treated also “Q. Voluntarily freely? A. murder, charged defendant Yes, sir. pleading guilty telling the truth and “Q. understand what voluntar- degree, had You second been sentenced to a to Yes, ily freely is? A. sir. penitentiary against long term the possible degree “Q. you death sentence first nothing. for We offer W.e just is the substance and it is promise nothing. murder. Such all you We would testimony you story that can be claimed relied tell us like to have this if upon by particular. your the defense in this you wish to of own Are accord. question it, is did light willing? Yes, viewed in you A. sir.”
26á tablished. This is demonstrated an ex- cross-examina- on
Pressing the witness cerpt gave enroute from on voir while any warning given tion as to up- deputy questioning dire examination about Pennsylvania, first Albuquerque to Albuquerque custody arrival in questions and on following Hay was asked deputies Pennsylvania indicated, gone who had to two received answers thereto Note this and his answer for him. wit: thereto: “Q. ride in the car? you Where did you “Q. And who discussed with Well, driving; turns A. we- took to re- your right give a statement or I while and drove a Charlie drove a Well, I am not give one? A. fuse while. did, along someone sure who but all “Q. Franklin? A. Where was do me have to told didn’t the back. do, they nothing I didn’t want to time ? “Q. him all the You rode with nothing; wouldn’t force me to-do Yes, A. sir. anything I just said I do didn’t didn’t want do.” you ques- “Q. During time did discussing while Earlier his voir dire him, yes, him? We talked tion A. *7 Pennsyl- trip interrogation on the from sir. possibility and the of the trial vania “Q. questioned him about And lighter (none of giving him a sentence Yes, alleged crime? A. sir. compelled judge was which “Q.( you him as to his did tell What quoted deputies believe), thus: to during that A. rights time? What . they “they promise me.” said would not before; anything you that he told A careful of all testi review say, anything he told or us would would mony subject dispels any on the doubt to against him, he had and be used arise, reading from the brief on this issue attorney, right and we to have counsel, filed defense as to correct statement from wouldn’t take admitting ness of the action of whatsoever; whatever he told when he statements, plaintiff’s Ex three written Albuquerque, if he wanted got back to 28, 30, ap hibits in evidence 29 and for freely statement and volun- make a praisal jury. There was here no up him.” tarily it was question long such and drawn out constant trip the defendant himself well under- on ing That of defendant the auto compul- Pennsylvania he was under no duress or stood New Mexico calcu as was questions speak answering seems well es- lated to cause him to “because he is sion
2.65 Indeed, deputy denied on each box put and it top overborne.” was back on of defend- constant and cabinet questioning was where it had continuously remained virtually ant, being voir dire re- since himself, on his brought from the undertaker’s prior signifi- claim it was. Nor is departure to the futes deputies Slaugh- to the fact that the terbeck cance to be attached for Hay Pennsylvania. The days four and half in room not, consumed officers as defendant’s counsel would prisoner, returning dangerous stopping have us tiny one, believe a approximate- day, they ly each 24-hour overnight 12x18 in size and served Slaughter- drive, traveling night day, been able beck’s office. As Attorney . General ar- days going gues, more than two when in little the clothes wrapped were up and in a box after him. with a lid it, on kept per- manently in that office top of a cabinet. questioning, at Al- none of either He aptly observes could not have buquerque trip or on the autó from Penn- been too vile smelling, “else either the anything sylvania, was there which even clothes or Slaughterbeck would have had process” approached the “suction of inter- yield completely office other.” rogation involved Watts v. State of Indiana, 49, 1347, 1357, 338 U.S. 69 S.Ct. The defendant’s place counsel much greatly upon a case 93 L.Ed. relied upon reliance statements from our by counsel defendant. actual Dena, cases of State v. N.M. preceded questioning which defendant’s P. Lord, State v. 42 N.M. plaintiff’s Exhibit 28 signing consumed 84 P.2d 84. In the Dena case we said than more hours. The no remain- 1% that a confession promises induced between then sign- der time and the occupied by ing stenographer leniency, express implied, is involuntary notes, by transcribing her the defendant in as a matter law and should be so de 'consuming a dinner and the time he steak clared and ruled out evidence. In State took to read the statement make cor- Lord we said: v. rections therein. “A confession person made by a ac- Nor was anything approximating- there crime, cused of promise induced physical torture in the fact that officers the. *8 by person him a held out to in authori- exhibited by opening to defendant before confess, ty, that if he would period punish- a exceeding not ten min- utes the box containing the ill smelling would not be so severe ment as it oth- clothes body. taken from be, deceased’s At the erwise would is not admissible in again end of that time placed the lid was because not voluntary.” evidence 266 repudiate question stance
, nothing our of law for the determina We except Ascarate, as tion of the State of these cases court.” v. holdings in either Dena, 191, 1036, supra, 1039, has N.M. v. holding in State v. P. State Anderson, extent N.M. 174 P. as some the later 215. And been modified Wickman, supra Wickman, 198, 43 we said 39 N.M. in State v. N. of State v. [39 .case 198, 43 : in the Dena M. P.2d The facts case are 937] 933. P.2d present. those quite from here different say “We consider too much to Indians, defendant who could There the imply promise must they speak English were told not would probably perceived, intended, none was Taking into “hurt” if confessed. be upon.” or relied education, lack in consideration their realizing While that decisions of the experience, mindedness and inabili simple Supreme United States Court binding are we held ty speak English, or understand rights on us where under the federal con- these defend from confessions so secured stitution invoked shown to have by promise made and ants were induced violated, been as illustrated in Watts v. involuntary. excluded should have been Indiana, State of 338 U.S. 69 S.Ct. by situation in this case We have no such quoted cited 93 L.Ed. Admittedly, direct the record no before us. brief; nevertheless, defendant’s this case promise aid express defendant which could be and others do no cited more Contrarily, way ever de was made. it can than hold that where be said aas told expressly officers fendant was matter of law the tendered confession is in- promises. make him no they could rejected. voluntary, Otherwise, it will be Lord, pointed it should be As to State v. jury it becomes a matter for the under quot- notwithstanding language out that proper complaint No instructions. is made very case the ed, confession supra, in that here given of the instructions in this be- years age, defendant 17 shown of a properly half. The trial court held the mat- it, time made record, at the ter be issuable in this case as it did also by the trial in evidence court as admitted Lord, supra. in State v. There is no dis- voluntary and a sentence of prima facie part agreement on our with the language following (later conviction commuted death quoted from the Lord case. course, Of a. imprisonment) life by the Governor promise confession induced to an ac- appeal on the this court affirmed cused of lighter person sentence from a conviction. such in authority is inadmissible because invol- untary. or not
Whether whether confessions it was so jury go should “is the first in- induced promise' where there no direct
267 inferred, all, speak out on issuable character of the one must be if evi- conflicting evidence, ju- the then before the on is still one for dence voluntari- court of ry. affirming judgment Among in the ness confessions.. Lord other case, things, we it said: necessarily so held. night Friday, September
We think there 16, was no error “The of admitting Carignan lodged city was jail. the confessions evidence. Anderson, supra; Lord, The morning, State v. Saturday, Herring, State v. next supra; Wickman, Marshal, supra; State the United States v. State v. undertook 711; Jenkins, 12, question respondent 56 in regard 239 P.2d State N.M. 478, 679; earlier crime of 52 No Marty, N.D. 203 N.W. murder. evidence
v. appears 532, violence, ques- of State, persistent Mainer 151 Tex.Cr.R. 208 v. S. 900; tioning, Carignan, deprivation or of United States v. 342 of food or W.2d L.Ed.-, Respondent rest. and Gal 72 S.Ct. 96 was told that he did U.S. U.S, not statement, 342 have to make Nebraska, 72 S.Ct. and that legos v. promises no could L.Ed. -. The two decisions be made him one 96 way Supreme pictures are cited another. There were States Court United of Christ supporting authority on certain and various Saints on the us point Jenkins, supra. walls of the office in which conver- State v. sation occurred. Marshal The evident- of the court in unanimous ly suggested to that his Maker Carignan States v. U.S. United [342 might think more of him if he told the enough furnishes facts like S.Ct. 99] truth The evidence about crime. present touching here the claim of those im- told Carig- also shows that the Marshal plied promises in quoting us warrant Marshal, he, had been in nan length. from it at some The defendant youth, orphan asylum an as a being detained on an assault charge while request respondent’s Carignan. On Alaska, police .Anchorage, was by the accused priest called. The talked was United States Marshal questioned some time and priest alone for and unsolved crime earlier about give Marshal he would later told conviction of which the murder, from a After return him a statement. brought high before the later matter p. Saturday, on jail about m. Although Govern- certiorari. on court undisturbed. was left permit failure to error for confessed ment questioned, Sunday he apart from “On defendant examination morning Marshal Monday involuntary character of touching jury jail respondent out upon felt confessions, again called took grand into the in the court- jury room self-incrimination, or from rule inquiry Upon house. if. the Marshal’s forced confessions untrustworthy, make, respond- he had statement to these uncontradicted do not bar facts ent answered that he had but that he as a matter law. confession priest wished to see first. The constitutional test for admission of *10 an accused’s confession in federal priest again talking “After the for' to courts for a long time has been whether time, gave he the Marshal a writ- some it was ‘freely, made voluntarily, and The ten statement. statement was non- compulsion without or inducement of charge. murder committal as to the ” (Emphasis sort.’ ours.) police other officers who were Two Carignan then with the Marshal In endeavoring protect rights of' perhaps suggested Carignan that would persons, accused the courts must not become They to the Marshal alone. rather talk so strict in the matter of interrogating them Carignan, The Marshal told withdrew. as seriously to peace handicap officers and inquiry, response an that he had prosecutors in in their efforts to solve crime. twenty-sev- court for been around that Neither should courts ef- countenance during years and that that time en forts to secure suspects confessions from hanging, coercion, had been what would brutality, promises ‘there no of reward promise him happen I couldn’t to him or like other means employed sometimes in There was some else.’ also criminal anyone investigations. or The many facts of Island, cases place McNeil location about will them in a twilight talk zone of doubt uncertainty where it is penitentiary, truly nearest diffi- of the federal say cult to as a matter of question law whether the said, reply to the Marshal prohibited line has been he, Marshal, crossed. The Carignan’s, of “hope of reward” cases are less difficult to that had been there ‘had men known pass upon than those involving brutality and that trade made learned a physicial happens torture. This to be their lives.’ After a few something of a case of the Again former kind. saywe Carig- conversation moments further not err court did holding the con- completed the written statement nan fessions were admissible in evidence. later in evidence. It then put that was killing. admitted But, argue counsel, defense even if involuntary are “Whether confessions ruling judge admitting the federal excluded from criminal trials confessions seems correct, otherwise he the ground violation of the displayed such confusion over certain lan protection Fifth against Amendment’s guage our in State v. Wickman, present position “According to rule state no supra, was prepared ad- voluntary char- the record the court is advisedly properly on or the time he mit Exhibits and 30 State’s when these acter of confessions introduced, proper they At foun- thereon. that time ruling his after announced jury.” dation is laid before the he stated: One of then reminded defense counsel duty Supreme said the Court “Our judge that the defendant had entered under the situation judge, trial of the plea judge guilty, to which here, question ‘The faced Prop- replied appreciated that he that fact. whether, under all here is judge for the exception er then taken the action circumstances, the influence was en- court. It is said innocent man enough an strong to cause though tertained the that even he be- view falsely.’ influence be- to confess involuntary, the statements lieved hope or the reward. the duress ing must further believe were untrue be- admissibility “The words, them, fore he could exclude in other is, force was such confessions innocent man If had confessed. an innocent man used to cause belief, course, such it was an confessions, falsely. confess The three appraisal erroneous we said of what confessions, in evi- alleged offered *11 Wickman In did saying case. what we here, Exhibits 29 and dence State’s there an often simply restating we were the defendant in one of them each employed trial by declared courts standard crime. major confesses a guilt his upon the passing admissibility pur- in of only acces- appears In one he to be the ported confessions of defendant. If it a appears be a sory, and the in other should be determined the trial court that all, the the of principal, but in result the influence sufficient cause an was here on the dire testimony as taken voir confess, innocent man to then it its today, his counsel the defendant or duty allow to decline to such confession to protested single point not have at one if go jury, not sufficient to ac- his innocence. result, complish then its such it be would duty admit it. discrepan- pointed out “They have cies, trial things judge were true Whether the entertained the they have denied in the Wickman case holding once it been of our general, in but not has view counsel, are not that an innocent attributed to him we urged upon the court likely say. It to us more prepared to seems to con- urged has been forced or man the de- he was placing of falsely. fess of agreed admissibility plane with his views on with the innocence fendant’s same on con- purported opinion sub- proposed the the confessions. The that.of voluntariness of facie fession, e., prima established i. admis- only to he dealt mitted not with (the mere only preliminary fashion sibility with also of the confessions but such for being claim innocence sufficient the assigned rulings errors as to other defendant’s entertaining purpose) before in manner court which he resolved But be objections to its admission. the entirely all members of satisfactory to about language as think his may it we do of all Accordingly, the discussion court. misappre- confusion case reflects exactly assigned next given other errors lan- by the hension as to what we meant very as to the him -save submitted Never- quoted in his remarks. guage he hereof affirms rather paragraph last theless, reversible error. we see no than judgment reverses about the spite of views entertained court. case, absolutely cor- he made an
Wickman claims The defendant also confes- admissibility ruling rect sustain erred in failing trial court Their ex- them. sions when admitted close at the his a directed verdict motion for They error. were been clusion would have ground chief on state’s case in of law. involuntary a matter corpus prove state had failed case about Wickman said Nothing he the confessions delicti. Disregarding slightest influence could have had the state was purposes proof, as of such confessions volun- testing whether Dena, there do, supra, bound to State v. Furthermore, every- involuntary. tary or body Lucille Ramirez proof that the place out of subject took on the said thing in an isolated had been found thick brush no he made presence jury in Bernalillo spot Rio near the Grande jury of it in his instructions. mention County of her with a bullet hole in the back Hence, it his heard remarks. never expert which a medical testified in head slight- influenced in the have been could not death; the defendant caused her by any its verdict degree reaching est disap night talked to of her her about the misapprehension of pearance city and had left so time spent more case. We Wickman Albuquerque, days three after journing, her this claim of error than it dealing disappearance; suitcase with the tag merits. on had been name of deceased found *12 of the authorship took occupied writer over the. The defendant a in room and a Mc- companion night in this Mr. after case from or the woman a so Justice deceased; the disappearance of the majority the court dis- suitcase when 'a Ghee pentathol September possession of the of the defendant on deceased was found in 23, Pennsylvania, many on questioned the his and then him defendant at home in points, and and watch to the deceased result this examination belonging as a also there it pawned by on his arrival became defendant very had been clear that the Ramirez, Albuquerque. only were suffi- not did from These facts not Lucille but kill corpus false, cient delicti to establish the the confessions made were Smith, jury. story take case State v. and that he told a true and áccurate was assign- The connection the case P.2d wtih which 51 N.M. 301. respects story in he told identical ment all without merit. on witness stand. prove by defendant offered to The The frankly defendant that no on states narcoanalysis testimony given that his court, knows, far so as he held such has kill the not the witness stand that did testimony admissible, says is time but of Dr. true. The evidence deceased was some quotes Herzog, court so. He did from the ab in Gore, taken psychiatrist, was Jurisprudence, Medical on results § sodium that when to show jury sence of detector, by scopolamine as a crime obtained one pentathol administered was where the given instances are .which one skilled amount and proper obtained, supports truth the article from be obtained work, the truth could use, says wrong may its even it answers ad been drug had person to whom if be obtained insufficient amounts gener a fact ministered, that such was wrong an- drug are administered and A.Dr. circles. medical ally recognized the sub- may swers be obtained when also of Albu psychiatrist Stewart, also B. yet either not the examina- ject has reached for the as a witness called querque, was' passed stage tion or has of it. out Gore, testimony of Dr. refute state to was con which a manner hand, produced so in and he did state On other offered evi judge. The trial Psy- vincing to article “The Use entitled Judicial rejected by the printed Dr. Gore through in France” chonarcosis dence that such tests Criminal ground Criminology, Law and Journal approved XL, generally page reliable Vol. No. we pro quote: of the medical accepted members psychiatry. specializing
fession Delay majority “Professor Psychiatrists psychonar- the re- assert that assigns error on defendant permit is not the determined judge to Dr. cosis able check fusal of point, concealing while precise sodium will of that he administered to testify Gore *13 272 Neuropsychi- Scharlin, under
Dr.
its
chief of
influence.
subjects
Each
of
department
Regional Hos-
had
atric
true
.
a
and a
quote
of
cover story. We
Besancon,
pital Department
gives
page
589
of
of the article:
hun-
results of about
following
a
“It is of interest
subjects
that the 3
experiments
been un-
dred
which
diagnosed
e.,
(i.
as normal
persons who
conditions similar
under
dertaken
perform adequately in their various
judicial
those
with
met
functions, have
good defenses
no
the results
matters.
cases
12%
highly pathological
characteristics)
prove completely
for in-
satisfactory;
maintained their cover stories.
theOf
stance,
subjected to narcosis
miner
subjects
6
diagnosed
neurotic,
as
following:
queer your
said the
‘It’s
promptly
story;
revealed the
true
stuff;
right, the
makes one
all
talk
partial
made
admissions, consisting of
need
careful
murderers
to be mighty
complex
pattern
fantasy
of
the examina-
you.’ In
cases
30%
truth; one admitted
likely
what most
only
precisions
tion is
able to obtain
a fantasy
truth;
and the one
details,
will con-
secondary
on
as the
obsessive-compulsive individual main-
important answers;
finally,
trols the
tained his cover story except for one
cases,
in about
the results are
60%
parapraxia,
(faulty or blundering ac-
completelynegative.”
tion). We
particularly
struck
The article further states:
S.,
fact that G. U. and S.
con-
who
unconscious,
readily,
fessed
strong
had
France,
“In
never
psychonarcosis has
guilt feelings.
suspect’s
been
obtaining
used
confession, except
experiments
in a few
“The fantasies
amytal
under sodium
judicial
which have no
value.”
can be understood only
light
in the
of
intimate knowledge
the subjects’
of
Psychiatry,
The
of
un-
American Journal
1951, issue,
processes.
conscious
1Q7,
February,
pp.
Vol.
Such
No.
fantasies
586-593, has
article
Frederich
C.
produced during
amytal
the sodium
in-
Redlich, M.D.,
Psychiatry,
Professor of
terview at times had the character of a
Medicine,
University
Yale
Leon-
School of
confession
D.,
case K.
of
who
Ravitz, M.D.,
Jr.,
George
plumber,
H. Ses-
confessed to
beating
ard
while
J.
sion, LL.D.,
Law,
Lines
Yale
Professor
reality
probably only
subject
School,
experiments made on
Law
nine
beaten.
fantasies
Such
are similar to
injections
had
persons
intravenous
who
daydreams;
dreams
times
amytal
questioned
and were
sodium
while
highly symbolic
'have a
character
inas
sity
exposition
for elaborate
spoke
disgusting
of its
C. Y. when
she
theory
prac-
and demonstration
its
figure,
beard of
sexualized father
reality
working,
tical
person in
in order to convince the
particular
while this
* *
jury
probative tendencies,
its
*.”
to-
beard.
no
gether with the
attacks
possibility
Supreme
in State
Court of Missouri
upon the soundness
its underlying
Mo.Sup.,
Hudson,
v.
289 S.W.
practical
and its
theory
usefulness,
doctor
refused the offered
of a
*14
easily result in
may
trial
the lie
of
that he
serum to
truth
administered
rather than the
detector
issues in the
ques-
defendant,
the answers made to
and
cause.
the
If
defendant in a criminal
influence' of
tions asked
while under
permitted
be
case
to
to
is
tak-
tests
court,
interesting
drug.
produce
en
of
outside
court and then to
on ac-
opinion,
error
rejected
claim of
expert testimony as to the results of the
testi-
admit such
count
the refusal
of
to
tests
these
him,
when
are favorable to
dec-
mony,
self-serving
it as
classifying
without
the necessity of taking the
laration
of consideration
unworthy
and
stand or
to
submitting
by
pros-
tests
present
knowledge.
state of human
ecution, the way would
open
seem be
to
keep step
agree
the courts should
to
that
We
that
abuses
promote
would not
developments,
justice.
but believe
cause of
scientific
It is
conclusion
our
651,
Bohner, 210
statements in
Wis.
that
State v.
the refusal
of
court to
ap-
317,
611,
86 A.L.R.
are
246 N.W.
admit this testimony
not error.”
was
pres-
plicable
reflect our
to this case and
Statements made by a defendant while
quote:
ent views. We
under
pentathol
the influence of sodium
were held inadmissible
and
self-serving
“It
us that this
of-
seems to
statement
hearsay by
Appeals
the District Court of
fers little comfort to one
contends
who
People McNichol,
California in
v.
100 Cal.
past
experimental
that this
is
device
App.2d 554,
275 overcome, they then admissible. duty admission of confessions and and see that the facts in If with their ‡ ‡ connection ‡ procurement fully developed, be to the end defendants, who the Dena case that a improperly confession obtained shall deputy Indians, told had been were not be admitted in Then the evidence. they would truth sheriff if told the opinion Foster, 25 quotes from v. State They they had confessed then be hurt. 361, 397, 398, N.M. 183 A.L.R. 417 P. 7 they had the crime for committed approves following and statement there arrested, held such con- but this court been made: in evidence because inadmissible fessions granted deputy and statement such "There is convincing no more evi- them a new trial. dence to than ordinary man a con- guilt, fession of a confession San, Dak State v. Woo
In the
case
admitted,
under an instruction to the
court affirmed
105, 290
N.M.
P.
jury to determine whether it is volun-
refused to
conviction but
judgment
tary
involuntary,
or
and to consider it
holdings on the admission
modify its former
case,
in the former
inor
latter case
quite
which,
said,
it
of confessions
were
reject it,
are,
probabilities
unless
strict.
the confession was extorted under cir-
before this
question
next
sym-
cumstances calculated to arouse
Wickman,
43 P.2d
N.M.
in State v.
pathy
defendant,
that the aver-
ain
labored
this court
rather
in which
age jury will consume but little time in
admissible,
confession
held the
determining
of whether
said, modified or
and, might well be
voluntary
the confession was
invol-
subject.
opinions on
former
clouded the
untary,
great
but
majority
will in the
was con
not wonder
do
prisoner
say
confessed,
cases
has
opinion.
parts
fused
certain
guilty beyond
and therefore is
rea-
court, however,
the later case of
This
sonable doubt.”
Lord,
N.M.
84 P.2d
v.
State
inspector
In this latter case an
of the Cat-
cases,
well as the
reviewed the older
tle Sanitary
prom-
Board admitted he had
case,
approved
the Emilio
Wickman
if
ised the defendant
he would confess
The admission of
Dena cases.
up
clear
theft he
be
affirmed,
prosecut-
would not
case
confession in the
Lord
only
ed,
yet, although
inspector’s
the facts
apparently
because
state-
*16
upon
fully developed.
is laid
ment was not denied and there was no
Stress
tes-
timony connecting
responsibility
defendant with
of
Especially
arising under
the dis-
in cases
ed.
except
theft
his own confession
important
accus-
the Due
Clause
their
Process
appearance of the cattle
distinguish
in-
issues of
disregarded the
between
fact
jury
range,
tomed
subject and
here foreclosed and issues
are
court on
struction of the
which, though
which
in the form of de-
guilty,
cast
promptly
verdict
returned
fact,
very
are
terminations of
issues
reversed.
this court
(Cit-
to review which this Court sits.
opinion in the
I submitted an
At the time
ing cases.)
erred in
present
holding the trial
case
appli-
confessions, the latest
admitting the
application
“In
embracing
of so
Supreme
Court
cable case from
'concept
process,’
constitutional
as ‘due
Indi-
v. State
was Watts
expect
United States
idle to
it would be
at all times
ana,
69 S.Ct.
338 U.S.
unanimity
Nevertheless,
of views.
1801,wherein it was
93 L.Ed.
said:
cases that have come here
all
dur-
ing the last decade from the courts of
convic-
State
“On review here of
various States in which
it was
tions,
are usu-
those
which
all
matters
claimed that the admission of coerced
fact
for con-
ally termed issues of
are
confessions vitiated convictions
by the State
clusive determination
murder,
complete
has
agree-
there
been
open for reconsider-
are not
courts and
any conflict in testimony
ment that
as
Observance
this Court.
ation
actually
to what
led to a contested con-
in our
of State
restriction
review
this
is not
this
scruple. But
fession
Court’s concern.
the utmost
courts calls.for
* * *
only
many
Therefore
those
colors.
elements
a coat of
‘issue of fact’ is
events and
drawn
cover a conclusion
circumstances
It does not
which a
happenings, when
confession was involved that
from uncontroverted
unquestioned
incorporates standards
States’s ver-
that conclusion
happened
what
judgment
sion of
are relevant
criteria for
of conduct
constitutional
issue
But if
themselves are decisive
here.
applied,
rights.
standards
force has been
Court
Such
does
constitutional
criteria,
against
the re-
not leave to local determination wheth-
measured
er
quirements
voluntary.
from constitutional
or not
confession was
drawn
proper applica-
There
provisions, and their
is torture of mind as well as
body;
tions,
adju-
this Court’s
will is much
are issues for
affected
& Allison Co.
fear as
force. And there
dication. Hooven
v.
comes a
652, 659,
point
Evatt,
65 S.Ct.
this Court should
U.S.
not be
[1260],
ignorant
cit-
277 “Q. you him La- But did tell about cases Child Taft, J., in C. men. See Furni- people gotten easy Drexel had where off (Bailey v. bor Tax Case 42 S.Ct Co.), talking, coming telling U.S. in and ture 259 and 450, 451, 66 L.Ed. [819] A.L.R. truth, isn’t right? A. 1432.” They always get they off if tell easier the truth go judge. and before the and decided case was This June “Q. and the Alaska him that? may when You told about A. be it was so old opin- majority Yes, sir. cited Nebraska cases reversal, í|» ripe for that it was ^
ion filed H» «I» sfc were But, dis- holding I its sound. consider * * * “Q. you stated You once case, own I believe our regarding the Watts him, him did discuss with and did tell require the confessions holding cases a about cases a confes- where makes wrung inadmissible under admissions up judge sion went before Deputy Hay exceedingly during got off easier? A. We about talked a quote I therefrom long cross-examination. cases, lot of but not murder cases. part: “Q. You told him about armed rob- “Q. you Didn’t cite numerous cases bery? Yes, right. A. that is you people him gotten had off where “Q. they up And how come they light with sentences because co- judge got confessed before the off operated you what told them ? and done Yes, lighter A. sir. sentence? anything I him A. didn’t tell about a case, anybody getting murder off. “Q. maybe misdemeanor, say Or liquor violation, you up go before the “Q. you tell him about oth- Did judge get easy? off and confess and A. might er case? A. I have told him judge is -lenient. Sometimes the cases, yes, about some other sir. “Q. about those vari- You told him
“Q. you got Where them off they light coop- awith sentence Yes, things? where kinds of A. sir. ous cooperat- erated? A. Not they where “Q. you tell him about Be- Did ed, went before the case? A. I nevides don’t believe I truth, they got leniency. told the Slaughterback I recall. did. don’t “Q. You told him about that? A. it, something have told him about might Yes, sir. telling him I remember about but don’t
# [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] it. I told him we worked the case. “Q. you tell Benevi- you Did him what told this afternoon I talked to all, I believe did. I got? des A. we -someabout I it. I don’t know what thirty-five got long. got memory think seventeen haven’t years. [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] “Q. Now, Hay, would Mr. I like
“Q. you Be- tell him Did what crime again, in connection with the discus- A. told was involved in? nevides sions and you conversations had with him, yes. Lindemuth, Mr. again refer to the testi- *18 “Q. you Do recall what crime mony concerning cases discussions of Well, charged A. he was now? prison where shorter terms were ob- degree pled second guilty to with —he tained confession. As I recall there murder, I believe. is some inconsistency as to testimo- “Q. you magazine him Did show ny yesterday afternoon and last concerning the Benevides case? article night. you Do recall having ever dis- No, didn’t he asked for it we A. cussed type cases of that with the de- give to him.” it fendant, Franklin Lester Lindemuth.? A. cases, We discussed several I the court announced 'the state- After say wouldn’t many. how Charlie talked admitted, jury was be ments would himto a while and I talked to him. I again the court and the witness brought into about, don’t know what Charlie talked We regarding the confession. examined all I can tell is what I about. talked from his cross-examination: quote further “Q. night Your oif last him “Q. .you telling recall Don’t . you having do not recall that discussed people different cases in about I them is now? A. said last corrected to crimes confessed have- come night I recall the that don’t different light off A. got sentences? with brought up; cases we that we talked Yes. him about where Some of this afternoon “Q. You were a little more definite ^ “Q. You told íjí them. about íJí people the cases about those? A. iji got [*] :}i off you told ‡ tent, said.” A. cally discussing the Benevides case? about some of them. “Q. It was I don’t know And do brought you up, now recall exactly but to what ex- what was specifi- light coming Notwithstanding sentences before the the statement in the ma- judge pleading guilty? A. No. I jority it would have been error confessions, No, trial had court Brown: wasn’t. excluded “Mr. have, unconsciously perhaps giv- feel
I Say again, Mr. “The Court: weight finding en much too 'interrupt. Murphy; don’t were vol- such confessions reg- Murphy: “Mr. with reference to regard was untary. I feel its action in that of Lucille istering- under the name its controlled erroneous view Ramirez. lan- I certain of its Wickman case. admit What the sub- “The Court: about astray. He guage might lead a trial stance, except for that mistake should, however, the later have followed registration ‘Teco’? first name Emilio and case State v. Lord and the approved. The trial Murphy: cases therein generally That is un- Dena “Mr. only find vol- judge could confessions true. untary involuntary, feeling the -and gen- You “The Court: contend it is in- required find an Wickman case him to erally untrue? find in order to
nocent man confessed Murphy: 29 “Mr. we contend involuntary (in the confessions admittedly untrue, almost exclu- leniency hope induced 'by instance sively. officers), he concluded statements of the You contend 29 is un- “The Court: himself innocent had not shown defendant true, you? 28 is do and admit true volun- the confessions were and therefore the follow- tary. this statement on base No, sir. “Mr. Nohl: *19 transcript testimo- excerpts ing from Murphy: necessarily, Not if “Mr. ju- ny, hearing taken out of the all please. Court rors: What State’s Ex- “The Court: about state- I have read “The Court: these 30? hibit I like to ask in full. would ments Murphy: That generally if that is un- counsel contend “Mr. defense un- Exhibit 28 is in substance true. State’s
true? nothing 'There in the “The Court: is Yes,
“Mr. Nohl: sir. testimony here from this witness about any except minor Murphy: that it the untruth “Mr. contend We 29; details, except as to- Exhibit many State’s respects, if the Court untrue says 28 and 30 are substan- brought witness please, of which were some truth, tially in.the testimo- stated the state’s examination of out on cross you offered ny have here. witness. Murphy: No, if the Court
“Mr. “The Court: All right. please, I am him if the sure I asked “By Murphy': Mr. true, facts contained if the there were “Q. Lindemuth, Mr. are the state- reporter could find that. ments contained in Plaintiff’s Exhibit minor Court: to some “The As August 28th, substantially dated points. word pointed You out the have generally No, correct? A. sir. place ‘Lucille’was word used “The Well, explain Court: let him ‘Teco,’ points. minor and some other that further. Murphy: of his tes- “Mr. effect Murphy: “Mr. just I want make timony, defendant) (the I asked him if that I might clear. error be in true, generally the statement was record not containing that. I taking no. feel like said didn’t document, “Q. every page item the Is the information contained in questioning him to its truth Plaintiff’s Exhibit dated on Sun- day, accuracy. 29th, If August P.M., the Court so desires I thirty will at ten proceed generally in that But No, we would true ? manner. A. sir. point out the fact would that indicate “Q. detail, in reference to State’s they were not the words of the wit- any Exhibit you have time fact, but the ness words exam- you you since—did gun, have with iner. while on the bus enroute to Harrisburg' No, Albuquerque? No, from I I don’t think A.
“The Court: want sir. any to hear more evidence on this. I “The Court: That is in State’s Ex- you right denying pro- to' am not hibit 30. evidence, further duce Murphy: you “Mr. thought you have Do That rested. is correct. testimony besides anything of Mr. “(Then followed in which you Lindemuth want offer ? disputed the witness the correctness and truth of all No, exhibits.) Nohl: three “Mr. sir. Murphy: please, If the Court “Q. your “Mr. What motive for may order record 'be signing papers? clear these A. From statement, your I would heard, on that like everything I seemed me-I permission to ask about myself three could more save going *20 questions. chair. point again, counsel on that and let de- avoid you would
“Q. felt You fense time the Yes, counsel raise it at the A. ? papers chair'by signing New state rests. But since the law of sir. proof Mexico is that the order is story con- magazine “Q. Did court, discretionary I with the trial you affect case Benevides cerning the prejudice see no to the defendant even Well, A. any manner? I prepared to admit that the cor- got the said, have would they way pus proved delicti has not been here. guilty, but not pled if he had chair mother to 'his Hay, he talked said, Mr. given “Now the situation me 'him lawyers, got father hunting counsel is the one I was for out plead you that when plead guilty, Supreme of the Wickman case. Our n Courtsaid the go to the electric couldn’t you guilty duty judge, of the trial chair. under the situation the court faced here, question ‘The for the here question. may Murphy: You “Mr. whether, circumstances, under all the waive The state will “The Court: strong enough the influence was on instructions from question, right to man cause an innocent to confess false- excused, may You be Mr. bench. influence duress ly.’ being or hope of reward. Witness. Excused. “Witness admissibility “The as to the the defense Does have- Court: “The is, of the confessions was such force
anything else? used toas -cause an innocent man to Murphy: Nothing else. “Mr. falsely. confessions, confess The three briefly you I will hear “The Court: confessions, alleged offered in evi- your argument. here, State’s Exhibits dence 30, in each one of them the defendant “Whereupon heard ar- the Court matter, said after gument major counsel on guilt to a crime. confesses following proceedings were which the appears only be ac- one jury: had, hearing of still out of appears in the other to be cessory, and all, result of principal, but in willing I to de- “The Court: am on the voir dire testimony as taken has time whether the state cide or his coun- today, the defendant corpus independent o-f here proved a delicti protest- single point not at one think sel any alleged don’t confessions. his innocence. ed I will hear is- before the Court. *21 discrep- out “The pointed expressed court has “They heretofore were things open ancies, they court to have denied counsel for the defend- it been once has ant the not general, that defense has true innocent every right produce an upon testimony court that urged con- urged to con- cerning taking forced or of these alleged man has been con- fessions, falsely. concerning fess any alleged alleged duress or undue of the present state “According to the influence, question and that the of the prepared to admit the court is record truth of the alleged matters con- when 29 and 30 Exhibits State’s question be fessions will jury, introduced, proper foun- after they are proper under instructions from this jury. dation is laid before court.” please, I If the Court Murphy: “Mr. attention your like call to would unduly At risk lengthening entered. has been guilty not plea opinion, dissenting heavy quotation has been made from the record in the belief appreciate that. Court: I “The of the that the writer nature and extent of of the Murphy: The admission “Mr. the trial court’s error of law is best shown by the de- excepted to are statements in context. fense. proceedings just quoted As the were had and then was reconvened “(The jury jurors while the were absent from the fol- they retired the After recessed. they, course, courtroom had no effect on had:) proceedings were lowing them; but, 'by as stated this court in the case, Foster there hope jurors little finds The court further “The Court: waste considering would time whether such upon used undue influence that no voluntary. confessions were defendant; no duress was used; advised of his con- that he was The weight given to be rights findings 'before made of fact of a judge stitutional trial who statement, warned, that was be- has been influenced in making them an statement, signed that the erroneous fore he view law has been con- against would be used him. sidered other courts. It statement is stated in 3 (Appeal error) Sec. p. Am.Jur. “Accordingly the court concludes 472: the facts and the law that the confessions, alleged appellate three State’s Ex- “The rule that an court will 28, 29 and 30 hibits findings admissible. not disturb the of fact made of defend- am convinced the statements mani- they are judge unless dep- ant were induced statements testi- festly weight against light punishment given defend- uties of committed mony, apply if he does con- ants other cases where manifestly in- an error of law fessed, expectation he hope conclusions or controlled his fluenced light sentence. likewise receive would fact, makes a mistake as where he finding of the I am further convinced the probandi commits as to the onus case, in not the that such was evidence. error exclusion of effect, vol- the statements always review appellate will *22 only untary was his belief because of when findings trial of the object to the admis- an innocent man could or in- manifestly controlled confession,.and defend- sion of that the. law. It is not fluenced error of required prove his innocence ant was 'by trial finding bound of the ruling the trial court before invoking a upon based an errone- oral evidence thereon. applied to ous view of the law fact, these know, We as a matter finding A of facts which con- facts. always offered nearly confessions are resulting of law trary to a conclusion chief, and the de- the state in its case in must be disre- from other facts found required only fendant is to come forward garded.” admissibility evidence on 'the support following cited in In the cases offered, leaving -the confession when it is n text, of- findings fact were the above by which him free to his evidence introduce although there overturned attempts to establish his innocence when them, an erroneous view support because the state has rested. controlled the conclu law influenced compose my brethren who the ma- Like McKeon, court: Wheeler v. sion hamper jority, not want to I do officers 1070, 1 92, 162 N.W. A.L.R. 137 Minn. justice, bringing criminals to of the law 163, Hall, 41 19 1514; S.C. S.E. v. Hall others, they, like all should work feel 696; Am.St.Rep. v. Wood 305, Chase 44 limitations constitutional and the within 126 N.W. Am. 113 ruff, 133 Wis. state and nation. of our laws Lorentzen, 972; St.Rep. Boardman 155 v. granted should be The defendant new L.R.A.,N.S., 566, 145 N.W. Wis. trial. Life 476; v. Northwestern Mut. Truelsch stated, I part. dissent in For the reason 38 A. Co., N.W. Wis. Ins. LUJAN, J.,C. concurs. 914. L.R. notes the somewhat her taken and was form answer question and pages ing. legal It consisted of 36 size from stenographer by a down in shorthand paper, spaced, double and an- who, attorney as district the office swer form. notes of shown, her transcribed later reading, defendant presented same The remained office hearing and attorney defendant. throughout, being district serv- signing correction assistant completion awaiting while asked ed a steak dinner questions were transcription ques- orderly and somewhat of of the notes of attorney in an district fashion, free considerate tioning. albeit When transcribed notes were formal coercion, browbeating or read suggestion to him for examination he returned district Indeed, assistant statement, making numerous intimidation. the entire get more than done no attorney pen ink in his own corrections name, age, date m., p. handwriting. It was identified as 10:30 defendant warning him like, before birth time this tedious detail was somewhat rights, such constitutional formally finished, of his whereupon was re- the defendant counsel, speak out right having county jail, turned to his cell only freely, silent, to talk or remain already It signed the statement. iden- accord, if his own voluntarily, and of tified plaintiff’s Exhibit 28. evidence as greater detail. shown in all, hereinafter It is to be observed from recital of this