*1 P.2d 350 Plaintiff-Respondent, Idaho, STATE SANDOVAL, Defendant- Jim
Jimmie Appellant.
No. 10289.
Supreme of Idaho. Court 25, 1969.
March *2 Home, being Wilson, ap- wagon which was in station driven D. Mountain Alan easterly in direction eastbound lane. pellant. Falcon, Lewis, of the The driver Viola Jean Gen., Atty. George Shepard, Allan G. killed in the accident. was Atty. Gen., Boise, Fred Detweiler, C. Asst. Appellant that testified a sudden blow- Atty., County, Kennedy, Pros. Elmore in out the left-hand front tire of the Buick Home, appellee. Mountain caused it veer into the eastbound lane. it is that While true the tire in DONALDSON, Justice. was following deflated examined (appellant) accident, San- Defendant other evidence indicated that Jimmie Jim guilty adjudged doval was convicted the deflation occurred when Sandoval’s car involuntary manslaughter in of as defined struck the of tires the trailer. was There (a).1 evidence, I.C. 18-4006(2) including testimony appellant, § himself, that Sandoval had imbibed at least adduced at trial that The facts show four twelve-ounce cans during of beer appellant driving was a 1957 Buick Sedan evening prior Twelve collision. westerly Highway ain direction on S.U. empty cans and four full cans of beer were County early Elmore the morn- in on #30 found the Buick. ing of other November 1967. Three two-lane, The road straight, slightly was Buick, persons passengers were in the undulating dry. night was dark asleep claimed be at the time of the Visibility clear. San- According accident. witnesses who doval lights should have seen the car, driving in a vehicle behind Sandoval’s oncoming trailer truck and Falcon station traveling mph Buick was at 50 in an wagon. manner, weaving erratic from side side Upon conviction, following a verdict of approximаte- At westbound lane. guilty jury, the ap- Court sentenced ly A.M., 1:40 about five east miles pellant years imprisonment to three Home, Mountain Sandoval’s auto crossed Penitentiary. Idaho State Sentence was over into the eastbound lane and brushed suspended on condition: against an trailer eastbound truck. The (1) appellant months in left serve six front tire and fender of the Buick County already Jail, the Elmore sideswiped the less left rear tires of the trailer. served; westerly Buick moving continued placed eastbound lane until a short distance (2) appellant agree later it ran head-on into Falcon probation a 1965 Board Cor- to the Idaho State Manslaughter 1. (b) “18—1006. lawful act In of a the commission defined. —Man slaughter killing death, might produce is the hu unlawful an unlaw- which being, negligence; gross man manner, without malice. is of two ful with or, kinds: (e) unlawful In the of an commission Voluntary quarrel a sudden — Act, amounting felony, not to a without passion. or heat of gross negligence; or, Involuntary perpetration —in (d) In the commission of a lawful act attempt perpetrаte any or unlawful might produce death, in an un- which act, rape, arson, robbery, other than kid- gross negli- manner, lawful but without napping, burglary, mayhem; or or in the gence. might commission of a lawful act which provision relating op- Provided, produce death, manner, in an unlawful eration of motor vehicle shall not be circumspection ; without due caution making any construed homicide in operation or in the firearm driving punishable vehicle as in- deadly weapon reckless, in a careless voluntary manslaughter which not a negligent produces death; manner which proximate result of the commission operation or in the a motor vehicle: act, felony, amounting unlawful to a not (a) In the commission of an unlawful or of the lawful commission of a act act, gross amounting felony, might produce not to a death in an unlaw- negligence; or, ful manner.” appellant Hospital Memorial where the three for the remainder rections injuries recovering from minor suffered years; offi- enforcement Two law accident. operate a motor prosecutor the uniformed (the cials pe- vehicle in United States *3 present, well as deputy sheriff) were probation. riod of unnamed, nurse, another, A Mar- patient. ques- prior Gillespie, present to appellant’s garet assignments er- Several of actual inter- tioning left of in- ror concern admission evidence into in- Appellant was bed when rogation. criminating Sandoval statements hearing on a terrogated. pre-trial At a prior objection, to arrest. state’s re- Over evidence, supprеss to Mendiola motion Deputy buttal witness Robert Sheriff J. Gillespie declared Nurse Mendiola testified to the statements which They rights. Miranda fully advised of his questions posed made in answer specifically waived that he Attorney testified by Prosecuting Mendiola and Kennedy. questioning have counsel place silent and to right remain 7, 1967, approximately November 11:00 initialled a signed and present. He also appellant’s rights:” A.M. in the Elmore room “notification of RIGHTS
"NOTIFICATIONS OF you any questions, you you have “Before we ask understand must certain both Cоnstitutions. the Idaho United States right remain You do not have talk to us. You have absolute say against you in Anything you can and will be used court. silent. any right you lawyer You have the talk to a for advice before we ask lawyer questions presence you even and to have advice you lawyer If cannot afford afford to hire one. want a cannot right appointed you to remain silent until one one have absolute expense. you public If wish represent you, which will be done at lawyer present, right questions you have thе to answer now without any stop answering questions time remain silent. “WAIVER only you com- statement after
“(Place at the end of each below initials means.) statement pletely understand what such that: my rights and understand statement of
I have read above right silent. J.S. absolute to remain I have the 1. J.S. against me court. say be used Anything I can will
2. any answering lawyer before right the advice of a I have 3. questions. J.S. question- lawyer during any present right I to have
4.
ing. J.S. needy can- am and therefore lawyer even if I right to a I have the wish, me, represent Iif aрpointed to one will be not afford one expense. J.S. public proceeding, at stage at this lawyer any questions without advice answer If I choose to any questions at stop answering present, I have being J.S. and remain silent. cannot, I above language, and write “I can read language speaks the interpreter who me explained rights were make questions and willing to answer I am write. read and I can lawyer. a statement. I not want a do I understand and know what promises doing. I am No me, or threats' have been mаde to and no pressure kind has been used me.
Signed: /s/ Jimmie Margaret Gillespie Hospital P. /s/
Witness Place R. /s/ J. 11-7-67_ Mendiola_
Date
10:27 a. m.
"
*4
Time”
attorney.
deputy
prosecuting
It
questioning
At
the
the
or the
the
Mendiola
appellant
that
appellant
that
the
was also established
never
sheriff knew
was
driver
sedan,
police.
of the
that a crime
before had been
trouble with
Buick
believed
proceedings
place appel-
took
had been committed when the accident When
old,
practical-
place,
appellant
years
lived
that the
lant was 21
had
believed
reservation,
ly
life
an
would be accused
a crime.
all his
on
Indian
Nevertheless
deputy
only
had had
with white
contended that
minimal contacts
he
sheriff
society.
attorney questioned appel-
hearing,
At
of the
prosecuting
the conclusion
complete
judge
lant in
stated from the bench:
an accident
district
order
in-
vestigation report. After
in the
the visit
appears to
a
“THE COURT: There
by
hospital
complaint
was sworn to Men-
questions
series of
here.
I have
involved
diola
and warrant
arrest
Sandoval’s
doubt,
Kennedy, but
no
Mr.
what
was issued.
thоroughly
of the defendant were
adequately explained
to him and he
hospital
The conversation in the
room
apprised
thoroughly
adequately
English.
was conditcted in
Mendiola and
rights.
only question
of his
Gillespie
gave
appellant
both
evidence that
whether
not he understood them.
speak
was able
Eng-
and understand the
language.
lish
Other evidence indicated
“Certainly
testimony
from his
there would
appellant
years
that
had
S
received
ability
upon
be a doubt cast
ordinarily
schooling,
spoke Navajo, but had
difficult,
understand.
knowledge
English.
some basic
particularly
leading questions
pre-trial hearing and the trial were con-
appeared
susceptible
and he
to be
lead-
English.
ducted in
Defendant
testified
ing questions
and the Court.
from counsel
length
at
at each proceeding.
show,
believe,
background
“His
would
I
At no time did
request
his counsel
in-
capable
par-
that
understanding,
he is
terpreter.
Nevertheless
stated
ticularly
says,
‘You don’t
somesone
that he
many
could not understand
say anything
you
don’t want to
by
terms used
the law
be-
officеrs when
tell us.’
ing
rights.
informed of his Miranda
He
also said that he
was afraid he would be
this-
“Another
is whether or not
jail
thrown in
he
accusatory
did not
investigatory
answer the
is an
state
questions posed. However
proceeding.
Sandoval said
think
I would tend to
personal
belief,
result-
they
people
were law enforcement
ing from
proceed-
conversations with friends
investigatory
who
state of
times,
had been arrested at
ing
other
and not
rather
making
than
an accusation
put
idea
had
against
his mind
Deputy
Mendiola
defendant.
rеmain
constitutional
fill out the
absolute
up there to
he went
testified
silent,
‘the
been denied
the accused has
getting
in addition
report
accident
in violation of
Assistance of Counsel’
on
accident.”
other information
to the Constitution
the Sixth Amendment
sup-
denying the motion
In its order
‘made
obligatory
States
evidence, the court found:
press
Amendment,’
Gideon
Fourteenth
“
* *
*
at the time
said con-
[335,]
Wainwright,
at
versation,
investigation
gen-
awas
S.Ct.,
A.
at
at
795 L.Ed.2d
[9
inquiry into an
crime
eral
unsolved
733,]
that no
elic-
L.R.2d
statement
begun
particular
focus
sus-
intеrroga-
police during
ited
pect,
said defendant was not
but that
tion
him at a crim-
be used
officials at
custody of law enforcement
U.S.,
trial.”
inal
that time.
S.Ct.
íjí
‡
‡
‡
ifc
#
Miranda,
Es-
specifically upheld
" * *
* *
*
*
That
the above
cobedo,
application
concerned the
“the
speak
named
under-
defendant could
privilege against
in-
self-incrimination
English language,
stand the
which is the
”
**
custody interrogation,
language
used
the said
Hen-
Robert J.
*5
441,
S.Ct.,
majority
at
86
at 1611. The
dióla and
Sandoval
Jimmie Jim
opinion stated:
said conversation.
“By
interrogation,
custodial
mean
we
questioning initiated
law enforce-
*
* *
* *
“That
person
ment
a
officers after
has been
knowingly
intelligently
waived his
custody
deprived
taken into
or otherwise
right
attorney
to such
any signifi-
of his freedom of action in
silent,
resulting
remain
and the
admis-
U.S.,
way.”
444,
S.Ct.,
cant
at
86
384
sion or
confession made
the defend-
at 1612.
ant,
any,
after said waiver is a vol-
explanation
aIn
footnote to the
of custodi-
untary statement and should be admissi-
interrogation,
said,
al
it was
what
“This is
ble in
against
evidence
the above named
spoke
wе meant in
when
Escobedo
we
defendant in the trial of said cause.”
investigation
on an
focused
The first issue to be resolved is whether
444, 4,
S.Ct.,
U.S.,
accused.” 384
at
n.
86
at
stage
a
in the proceedings had been
“deprived
1612. The term
of his freedom”
reached at
time
questioning
the
opinion:
limited
the
was
later in
the
explana-
was entitled to an
summarize,
“To
we
hold that when
tion of his fifth and sixth amendment
individual
custody
is taken into
oth-
as vouchsafed
Miranda v. Ari-
deprived
erwise
of his
freedom
zona,
436,
384
1602,
U.S.
86 S.Ct.
16 L.Ed.
any significant way
authorities in
and is
694,
2d
tantamount to
issue,
supporting
the trial court’s
on technical
base
decision
do not
our
justify
require
ruling
sufficient
admission
custody
was
view of
unrealistic
incriminating
objective facts, and
Under
ment,
statements.
on all the
we
such circumstances
cannot overturn that
interview. United
circumstances of
675,
Fisk,
ruling.
v.
92 Idaho
448 P.
Mackiewicz,
State
(2d
prehend explanation rights. Hoffa of those totally appellant’s to Miranda the refutes from the From remarks of court ory: bench, judge it be inferred that argument under petitioner’s as second had some initial doubts to Sandoval’s “The no ex- facility understanding English. needs How Amendment the Sixth goes ever, argument by That later remarks and his order tended discussion. 25, evidence, than denying suppress October motion to Not later follows: 1962, sufficient judge is clear that the district resolved Government into taking petitioner ground doubts and decided that the endeavors competency custody charging to had sufficient in him with jury. intelligent Fleet knowing tamper make waiver. with the Test so, it could complied pro The district court with the Had the done Government peti- prescribed cedure the United States not have continued to Supreme ad his Sixth determining the Court for tioner without observance missibility right Massiah into of defendant’s counsel. evidence Amendment 201, States, extra-judicial v. 84 S.Ct. statements. 377 U.S. United Jackson Denno, 368, 1774, 1199, 246; L.Ed. v. State 378 84 S.Ct. 12 12 L.Ed.2d Escobedo 1758, 908, 478, (1964). Illinois, 2d 1 1205 A.L.R.3d While 84 S.Ct.
859 Therefore, argu- “Any 12 L.Ed.2d evidence logically which tends to concludes, prove disprove ment evidence statements a fact in issue re petitioner subsequent admissible, levant and pro therefore inadmissible, October 25 was because vided it is not speculative, too remote or acquired slight evidence probative Government of such value as to only flouting petitioner’s justify Sixth excluding court it on Amendment right grounds immateriality. counsel. Farr State v. is, 439, 48 Idaho P. (1929). 282 489 See “Nothing Massiah, Escobedo, 255, also Linebarger, State v. 71 Idaho other at- case come our has Kleier, 232 P.2d (1951); 669 State v. 69 tention, remotely suggests even 278, Idaho Wil paradoxical novel constitutional Neddo, liams Idaho, 66 163 P.2d doctrine, and adopt we decline to it now. 306 (1945); McClain v. Lewiston Inter There is no constitutional to be Ass’n, state Fair Racing & 17 Idaho police arrested. required are not L.R.A..N.S., 104 (1909). P. guess peril at precise their mo- * * while finality there is no they probable ment cause hаve the discretion of the trial court on the suspect, risking to arrest a a violation point evidence, the appellate court they Fourth act Amendment should to superimpose hesitate judg its soon, too violation of the Sixth ment to the contrary probative as to the they Amendment if long. wait too Law value of except the evidence aas matter enforcement con- officers are under no law, preced based established duty stitutional call a halt a crim- Alvord, ents.’ State v. inal investigatiоn they the moment 272 P. Wig See 1 the minimum prob- evidence establish Evidence, ed., 238, more on p. 2d 494.” § cause, quantum able of evidence which Cypher, State 438 P.2d may fall far short of the amount nec- 904, at essary to support a criminal conviction.” U.S., 309, 310, at 417. 87 S.Ct. is. under a demonstration Where (footnote omitted). witness, sole, subjective control per great should exercised caution trial, At the district court refused to al- evidence. mitting introduction into its low Sandoval direct examination to *7 Brooklyn Heights See, R.R. g., e. Clark read jury to in from a book written Co., N.E. 647 N.Y. English. purpose of this demonstra- tion inability was to to show defendant’s attorney to elic desired Sandoval’s English. understand in his it from him demonstration of
“Properly
initially
Naturally
ability
English.
the trial court should
to understand
feign
determine that the
strong temptation
confession
admis-
be
or
there would
would be
ignorance
language.
voluntarily
sion was
as a
for
basis
that the wit
well-nigh impossible
show
Thereafter,
its
in
admission
evidence.
Contrarily, if San
faking.
had
ness
been
may
jury
hear and consider evidence
attorney
to dem
him
wished
doval’s
on the voluntаriness
statement
of a
English,
working knowledge
onstrate
might
whatever
effect
such evidence
impossible
at least
or
it would
been
have
upon
weight
given the
have
be
pretend to
from
difficult
him to
read
Fisk,
confession or admission.” State v.
book,
if in fact he was unable
448 P.2d
at 773.
assuming
comprehend English,
picked Hall,
See
to be read had
also State v.
88 Idaho
397 selection
counsel,
;
supra;
opposing
on cross-
Denno,
P.2d
random. Had
Jackson
examination,
Vlack,
desired to test
the witness’
State Van
P.2d
57 Idaho
ability
a lan-
inability
undеrstand
or
necessary and ex-
as it deems
part
on the
conditions
cooperate
the desire to
guage,
or
pedient,
have been
longer would
of the witness no
demonstrate
Asking
present.
terms
on such
judgment
3.* Withhold
* * *
direct ex-
understanding on
may
lack of
it
time as
and for
*
trial
attempted at
manner
amination
the defendant
may
place
prescribe and
ques-
asking
leading
tantamount
probation.
may
in its discretion
The trial court
tion.
however,
Provided,
if the crime
probative
questions.2 The
disallow such
felony
judgment
is a
invоlved
be of
would
effect of such demonstration
or if
provided
3. above
as
withheld
might
Permitting
questionable value.
it
imprison-
a sentence of
judgment and
and con-
the issues
tended
obscure
suspended at
penitentiary
ment to
wisely exercised
jury. The Court
fuse the
judgment in accordance
time of
the dem-
refusing
to admit
its discretion
place the de-
court shall
2. above and the
onstration.
may
to the
probation, it
be
fendant
con-
Finally, appellant argues that
proper,
to some
board of corrections
рrobation prohibiting him from
dition of
by the
designated
person selected and
cruel
driving an
constitutes
automobile
court,
and conditions
such terms
Const.,
punishment.
unusual
necessary and ex-
deems
the court
VIII;
Const.,
amend.
art.
§
further
pedient;
provided,
Allegedly
only means
liveli-
Sandoval’s
misdemeanor,
is a
the crime involved
migrant farm laborer.
hood is work as a
otherwise,
if the court
indictable or
told, requires
employment,
are
Such
we
remaining portion
suspend any
should
public
on the
him to drive farm vehicles
jail
already commuted
sentence
privilege of
Denying
roads.
him the
above,
court, if
accordance with
earning a
driving
prevents
thus
him from
may place the de-
grants probation,
it
living. Although
the record does
ev-
charge
probation in
of some
fendant on
allegations presented in
idence the factual
person
designated
proper
selected
brief,
argument on
we shall treat
purpose,
make
court for
legal
merits.
court
as the
such orders relative thereto
Commutation, suspension, zvith-
necessary
"Parole —
in its
dеems
sound discretion
holding
sentence —Probation.—When-
expedient.”
I.C.
19-2601
§
any person
ever
shall have been con-
right;
is not a matter
“Probation
victed,
any
plea
guilty,
or enter a
through
granted
the defendant
Idaho,
district court of the
state
by the trial
discretion
exercise of sound
laws of
crime
authority con-
the ambit
court within
State, except
or mur-
those of treason
Franklin v.
legislature.”
ferred
*
der,
discretion, may:
court
the
*
its
State,
1. Commute
sentence
and con-
*8
accord,
404
v.
State
Gish.
or,
county jail,
fine the defendant in the
P.2d 595
if the
proper age,
defendant is
in the
of
* ;
State Industrial School
probation is
purpose of
The
to be
opportunity
an
give
the
of
Suspend the execution
2.
proper control
under
or at
rehabilitated
judgment
time of
judgment at the
43,
Oyler,
Idaho
92
v.
supervision. State
of a sentence
term
Gish, supra;
v.
State
861
interrogation
reasonably
opinion
holds that
related
must be
probation
interrogation”
Sandoval was
“custodial
rehabilitation.
purpose
probation,
Miranda.
pro-
defined Escobedo and
With
condition of
Oyler, supra.
v.
A
State
improp-
this conclusion I must dissent.
is
impossible of fulfillment
bation
“ * * *
period
Oyler,
supra.
еr. State
I agree that
evil to be
may
long as the maximum
probation
last as
psychological
guarded
is the
coer-
might have
period
which defendant
person
speak
on
cion
a
when confronted
Medley,
parte
73
imprisoned.
Ex
interrogation
private,
in a
official
A defend-
isolated, incommunicado, police-dominated
may
probation, should he con-
ant
decline
atmosphere.”
onerous, and demand
its terms
sider
too
accusatory phase
This case
inwas
by the
instead to
sentenced
court.
at the time
interrogation.
is
State, supra,
Franklin v.
and cases cited
year old,
Indian,
a 21
Navajo
with five
therein.
years
injured
of schooling. He was
from
the automobile accident. He was in a
that de
When
remembered
him,
surrounding
e.,
operation
unfamiliar
fendant’s
of the
i.
arose out
crime
hospital.
vehicle,
a
He was
of motor
condition
confronted with a uni-
pro
formed
prohibiting
driving
prosecuting
bation
officer and the
him from
bears
attor-
ney
county.
a
relationship
reasonable
to his crime and
Extensivе and com-
plete steps
impose
officer,
his
were
To
such con
taken
rehabilitation.
atmosphere,
dition was not an
to inform
abuse
discretion.
Sandoval of
City
Rio,
guaranteed by
Mich.App.
rights
Detroit
constitutional
v. Del
10
Miranda.
157 N.W.2d
cf.
There can be little
(Ct.App.1968);
People
Caruso,
Cal.App.2d
leaped
Sandoval had
from the bed and
attempted
denied,
leave,
P.2d 282
(Dist.Ct.App.1959), cert.
he would have been
detained.
80 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
(1960). There has been
showing
no
A formal
prior
arrest was not
impossible
condition is
of fulfillment.
interrоgation, however,
I do not under-
period
isNor
probation
excessive.3 stand that arrest
to placing
essential
accused
custody.”
“in
People
As stated in
The judgment
is affirmed.
Arnold,
66 Cal.2d
Cal.Rptr.
statements; yet relieved of decision because of Miranda
sanctions hospital in a
the defendant was isolated atmosphere the local
rather than in the
police station. my opinion
In that San- this case con-
doval’s freedom of movement
structively while in the accusa- restricted
tory “in cus- stage, and defendant was
tody” interrogation place. Arnold,
People Car- supra; State v.
penter, supra. Heckman,
Don HECKMAN Vern dba Brothers, Partnership, Heckman Plaintiffs-Respondents, LIVESTOCK
BOISE VALLEY COMMIS- COMPANY,dba K. SION Livestock O. Yards, Defendant-Appellant. Feed
No. 10191. Supreme Elam, Burke, Court Idaho. Boyd, Jeppesen, Peter J. Boise, Boyd, March аppellant. Evans & for
Ryan Weiser, Speropulos, respon- & dents.
SPEAR, Justice. presented whether re issue by acceptance note from a spondents, discharge person, third intended obliga debtor, its original appellant, from agree tion. court’s find We trial fact, respondents did ings of appellant, and intend to affirm release judgment respondents. During respond- of 1962-1963 winter ents, operating partnership, consigned as a appellant, cattle head of corporation, purpose for the of hav- ing the cattle fattened and readied for April In market. sold 35