*1 appellees could not casually abandon their previously assumed responsibilities. purposes Suffice it that for say, pleading it was not necessary appellant allege part any person. reliance on the of Bildot or other The rule remains a person voluntarily that whenever assumes duty care, he must thereafter act While reliance on reasonably. part or party victim a third may be relevant conduct, the reasonableness of the volunteer’s not a necessary element of the cause of action. Betesh v. States, 238, (D. 1974) Supp. United 400 F. D.C. (applying law); Prosser, Maryland W. of the Law of Handbook Torts § 56, (4th 1971). Contra, at 347-48 ed. v. Stephens, Chisolm 999, 80, 47 Ill. App.3d (1977). 7 Ill. Dec. 365 N.E.2d Accordingly, remand I would not require appellees to amend their declaration in order to state a cause action for breach of duty Judge assumed of care. voluntarily Eldridge joins authorizes me to opinion. state that DONALD RAY WATSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Term, September
[No. 1977.] February Decided 1978. *2 J., and Smith, C. argued Murphy, cause was before
The Eldridge JJ., reargued and and Orth, Digges, Levine, Eldridge J., and Levine, Smith, Digges, Murphy, C. before Judge of JJ., Chief Sodaro, and and Orth, Anselm assigned. Circuit, specially Eighth Judicial R. Assistant Malloy, Michael reargued by and Argued Murrell, Defender, H. Public Alan whom was Public with brief, Defender, appellant. on the Robinette, Assistant H reargued by and Gilbert Argued Burch, General, Francis B. with whom Attorney General, Assistant Sharp, W. and Clarence Attorney brief, for General, appellee. on the Attorney J., Digges, of the Court. opinion delivered Smith, J., filed a JJ., and Eldridge, dissent and Eldridge, Levine Digges JJ., concur dissenting opinion which Levine, page at 84 infra. of determination Court here affirm the shall
We 381, 370 A. State, 35 Md. App. Appeals in Watson v. Special (Watson), Ray (1977),that Donald Watson appellant, 2d 1149 counsel when present to have effectively waived of granted writ inculpatory statement. We made an Brewer light in the the matter consider certiorari (1977). 1232, 51 L.Ed.2d Williams, 97 S. Ct. 430 U. S. County for Baltimore a trial in the At court Circuit deadly weapon robbery Watson was convicted a crime of violence. commission of the use in the handgun Appeals of Special the Court The facts were set forth for Judge Liss. repeat only We shall those facts necessary to a understanding of clear issue we narrow shall agreed address. An statement of facts was submitted to us Maryland g. under Rule robbery place took on January p.m. 12:20
approximately Watson arrested at 1:05 p.m. was while driving automobile which had been used in the robbery. warnings Miranda were read to him at that time. John Hopkins (Hopkins) Detective County Baltimore Police Department, case, who charge called Watson’s mother to inform her of charges against replied Watson. He in the inquiry affirmative her whether Watson would need a was told that lawyer. Watson his mother had been called. He of his again advised rights p.m. day. Miranda at about 4:80 Upon the same being told that the State’s so if would be advised Attorney *3 Hopkins Watson assisted investigation robbery, the statement, Watson made an oral the exculpatory which parties agree properly was admitted into Upon evidence. completion of this Hopkins statement told Watson that he did story. not believe his requested Watson He lawyer. was allowed to call his mother.
Private defense counsel was hired. attorney The spoke Hopkins on each of separate of two days preliminary hearings. they While were the courthouse for the second hearing, Hopkins told the he attorney that had doubts about guilt Watson’s and suggested that Watson take a lie-detector test. (polygraph) Counsel to agreed suggestion Watson, and instructed presence in the Hopkins, “You go are to to meet with Hopkins Detective when he you calls at a scheduled date. ... Under any cimimstances, you are to give any not statement beyond the polygraph examination.” Hopkins Counsel told that he was not to question Watson except for the questioning involved in the polygraph test. Hopkins agreed. Hopkins When advised counsel of test, scheduled date for the polygraph he agreed to call counsel and to let him know the result of test. told operator polygraph test administered. The
The was advised operator he The then that had failed test. Watson come the test telephone to around because Hopkins by talk failed, to over, had and that Watson wanted that Watson the defense Hopkins to call Hopkins. attempted twice The test. had failed the to advise him that Watson attorney occasions. the office both was out Hopkins after test was over minutes Approximately room, he informed that polygraph entered the Watson stated, attorney, to reach his unsuccessfully attempted but, me, “I to tell you something you understand have want all, your rights again.” I’m to read Watson going first of did advice rights, informed of his Miranda again then however, include, to the instruction any not reference request make nor counsel’s counsel to no statement affirmatively then Hopkins question Watson. Watson he to talk rights, that he understood his wanted stated detective, get something “he off and that wanted The statement then followed. inculpatory chest.” judge ruling suppress trial in his on the motion to said the inculpatory statement: defendant, case,
“The in this has testified on issue, and he did not call Detective has stated Hopkins; taken Detective Hopkins; that he was that he knew say anything except that he didn’t There [, robbery suspects]. one of the Jerome Moore present other officers said didn’t they who him; during polygraph, the course of believe said, ‘You administering the polygraph the officer *4 said, you He ‘No.’ drive car?’ He did not?’ ‘Did the said, ‘No,’ and he told that he believed. was wasn’t his Hopkins He told that he wanted to call Detective a attorney, and that after number statements as Hopkins made Detective to what by that, then, Hopkins happened, Detective said after read and that’s the incident rights, he was his how 11th, on February occurred ’76. that, Hopkins states
“In contrast to Detective that, [(Watson’s to speak Kroop he did Mr. yes, he to take the agreed that was that was attorney)], not conduct an test, that he would polygraph Hopkins Detective the defendant. interview administered defendant was said did that he test, he informed that was polygraph defendant same, that the he was informed pass still, he read him; that, at this point, talk wanted Now, point, look- rights to at this him. the Miranda circumstances, have totality we ing at the rights is read his defendant where the situation third time that time, for the and has said the third them; also, where he a situation he understands good attorney and access to a has had access him, and attorney who, unquestionably, advised anything say stated, not to so Hopkins Detective test, yet the polygraph during the of this course statement, ac- chooses to make still defendant testimony Hopkins. Detective cording to “... Detective testimony Hopkins [T]he did, occurred, again, him this is what that he advise rights, given, of his and that a statement and was accept testimony Hopkins I of Detective ....
“I don’t the sequence believe of events as me I by described to defendant this case. will however, that say, given statements by defendant upon do not indicate to me that he put was or lulled kind into some of sense false security by having virtue of a polygraph been administered test.
I that, don’t feel he transpired, based on what says that was the situation that existed at the time the polygraph I completed, and think that statement given voluntarily with the rights, understanding having of his Miranda given good counsel, been advice he chose to ignore it at Then, particular time. I don’t know of any duty on the detective contact the him, tell him try the situation. He did to call said, to tell him what the results of the polygraph were, him, is, but was unable to contact
78 understandable, trial attorneys’
certainly, that such understandable being busy, it is schedules occasion, Iso on this happen as that things would 11th, February on given the statement rule that will ’76, is admissible.” in McDowell for the Court Bruñe observed Judge
As Chief
(1963), “The
205, 211,
A. 2d 611
State,
Md.
189
v.
231
the determination of
for
primarily
of witnesses
credibility
513, 514,
State,
187
230 Md.
trier of facts. McKenzie v.
the
State, 247 Md.
Accord, Cunningham v.
[(1963)].”
2dA.
885
denied,
908
404, 417,
(1967), cert.
390 U. S.
In Brewer girl Williams, abducting 10-year-old arrested for *6 he turned disappeared after she days Eve. Two Christmas Iowa, a located town Davenport, at police himself to abduction, Des of her place miles from the approximately Davenport at of counsel He the assistance Moines. received a lawyer by telephone by as as communication well him that the in Des Moines advised attorney Des Moines. His bring him to out, up, him and back pick police were drive not to agreed they told Des Moines. He Williams make instructed to during trip. him the Williams was advice was police. to the Similar kind any no statement That Davenport. attorney attorney him the given came to officer who police when apprehensive became warnings and then the Miranda up repeated Williams pick visiting said, this we’ll be “I to remember because you want asserted to the Moines.” The here and Des between that there would agreement that there police officer was requested permission ride. He during no interrogation be car, in the but police to ride back to Des Moines with Williams it: put refused. As the Court request was detectives, charge, in their “The with Williams two during At no time then set out on the 160-miledrive. willingness to be express did trip Williams Instead, interrogated attorney. of an the absence get I to Des times that stated several ‘[w]hen I am McKnight [(his attorney)], Moines and see Mr. Learning
going story.’ to tell the whole Detective you patient, a former mental and knew that Williams religious.” Id. at 392. deeply knew also that he was fact, opinion In had said earlier in its that Williams A recently escaped hospital....” “had from a mental place covering variety took wide-ranging conversation Addressing topics, including religion. Williams “Reverend,” referred gave has since been detective what speech”: to as the “Christian burial
“ something T to think while give you want about one, I the road.... traveling we’re down Number conditions, it’s to observe the you want weather sleeting, freezing, driving very is raining, it’s it’s treacherous, it’s dark poor, going to be visibility evening. predicting this are several early They I you and feel that tonight, inches of snow this yourself only person are knows where is, girl’s body you yourself only little have been once, if of it you get top you there and a snow And, to find it. since will yourself may be unable we past on the into Des way be the area going Moines, stop body, and locate the I feel we could girl little should entitled parents that the girl for the little a Christian burial who from away snatched them on Christmas [E]ve stop And I feel should and locate it on murdered. we morning in rather until way waiting than *7 after a storm and trying to come back out snow ” being not to find it at Id. at possibly able all.’ 392-93. response why
In to a from as to Williams taking thought the Moines detective route to Des would be knew past girl’s body, replied them the detective that he they in the area of a certain town that body was said no such passing. actually The the detective had Court stated, The officer “I do not want to answer knowledge. you me. I further. think any don’t want to discuss it about Just it as on the riding we’re down the road.” Williams reflected to the ultimately police officer’s comment and directed the body. proceedings had been initiated before Judicial said, The “There can beginning of the automobile ride. Court doubt, either, Learning no that serious Detective from and set out to elicit information deliberately designedly — effectively just surely perhaps Williams as as and more — than 399. In interrogated if he had him.” Id. at formally fact, argument it by footnote said that before of Iowa conceded that burial Attorney General “Christian The speech” interrogation. tantamount Id. at 399 n.6. to stated, technical “It ... no wooden or requires application the Massiah doctrine to conclude that Williams him guaranteed to to the assistance counsel was entitled It Id. at 401. and Amendments.” by the Sixth Fourteenth appeared to informed of noted “that Williams been counsel,” adding: right his to understand comprehension but requires merely “But waiver relinquishment, and Williams’ consistent reliance dealing with the of counsel in upon advice he suggestion that waived any refutes authorities 404. right.” that Id. at
It concluded: assertions
“Despite express implicit Williams’ counsel, Learning proceeded right his to Detective from Williams. incriminating elicit statements by telling this effort Learning preface did not presence he had Williams effort to ascertain and made no at all lawyer, relinquish right. Williams wished whether provide case thus circumstances of record this finding that Williams waived no reasonable basis of counsel. his the assistance we, hold, “The did not nor do Appeals Court of of this case Williams could under not, circumstances counsel, his rights without notice to have waived under the and Fourteenth Amendments. It Sixth held, we, not.” Id. at 405-06. only do did (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis original.) regard it as that Mr. Powell said significant We Justice concurring opinion: *8 opinion “The of The Justice states dissenting Chief holding ‘conclusively the Court’s today presumes suspect legally incompetent change is his mind and the truth is tell until Post, no at 419. I find present.’ justification opinion of the Court is contrary, view. On right clear to assistance of counsel explicitly attached, waived, it has notice may be after without Ante, to or counsel. at 405-406. consultation with We would have such a petitioner case here if had proved police that the officers refrained from coercion and interrogation, as and that they agreed, Williams on his freely had confessed the crime.” own initiative Id. at 413.
This makes it clear that the Court was not
rule
adopting any
holding
would have
effect of
that an
individual
not
waive
to have counsel
once
present
he has
Indeed,
obtained counsel.
such a rule
directly
would be
contrary
California,
to the
holding
the Court in Faretta v.
806, 837,
(1975),
U. S.
95 S. Ct.
It will be recalled that in Massiah a merchant seaman was
arrested
and subsequently
possession
indicted for
narcotics aboard a United States vessel. He retained counsel
pleaded
He and
guilty.
a codefendant
released
were
on bail. Without his knowledge, the codefendant decided to
cooperate
government
with the
agents in their continuing
investigation
the narcotics
activities
which the
codefendant
and others had been involved. With the
permission of
codefendant,
a radio transmitter was
installed under
the front
seat
the codefendant’s
automobile, allowing conversations carried on in the car to be
overheard
aby
agent
narcotics
from some
away.
distance
Massiah made
incriminating
several
statements
during
course of the conversation with his codefendant. These
incriminating statements
brought
before the
jury
1. Waiver cases decided since Brewer are in accord with this view. See
Hale,
(5th
1977);
United
2d 652
United
Koch,
Estelle,
States v.
There are significant differences between this case and Brewer and surreptitious activity Massiah. There was no Massiah; this case as in nor do we have such trickery as was California, present in Miller v. U. S. S. Ct. (1968),
subsequent to Massiah. Brewer,
In out, as already pointed we have it was conceded that the “Christian speech” interrogation burial was an tactic. fact, In Mr. Justice Powell said this:
“I join the of the Court also finds opinion the efforts of Learning Detective ‘to elicit Williams,’ information from by conceded counsel for petitioner argument, ante, at oral at 400 n.
awere skillful and form interrogation. effective Moreover, setting the entire was conducive to the psychological coercion that successfully exploited. Williams was police known to be a young quixotic religious man with convictions and a history of mental disorders. day The date was the Christmas, after ominous, weather was and the setting appropriate for talk Learning’s Detective concealing body preventing
snow ‘Christian burial.’ Williams was alone in the automobile with police two officers for several *10 record, hours. It clear is from the of the both found, federal courts below there was no knowing evidence of a and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel present beyond have the fact that Williams ultimately confessed. It is settled law an inferred waiver a constitutional Williams, disfavored. Estelle 425 U. S. (1976)(Powell, J., concurring).” 430 at 412. U. S. The polygraph tactic; test here no trick or was coercive Watson willingly submitted to it. It was after this that he took in matters his hands. nothing own There is in the record before us to indicate that Watson is in other than any way a normal mentally. individual We here psychological have no coercion as in Brewer.
We do have a conflict of evidence as to what took just place after completion the of the polygraph test. Although we have obligation an to make an independent constitutional appraisal on counsel, the issue of waiver of are in no position we judge the credibility of the witnesses since we neither heard nor them. The trial saw did judge have the opportunity observe their demeanor. This is a case obviously where one must choose conflicting statements, between cannot we say the trial judge was clearly concluding error Watson being untruthful and police the being truthful in their facts, recitation of the facts. The as found true, the trial judge, if would clearly up add to a knowing, intelligent, effective waiver counsel by Watson. Accordingly, we find no error. affirmed; t
Judgmen t appellan pay the costs. J.,
Eldridge, dissenting: After the defendant arrested, Watson specifically requested a lawyer, and retained a private attorney. The record shows that Watson thereafter relied advice of on the charges filed and Thus, had been after attorney. his under Watson, acting preliminary hearing, of his second date polygraph take a agreed to attorney, of his the instructions police from the attorney secured examination. Watson’s interrogation of no they conduct would agreement polygraph questioning for the involved except Watson However, examination, agreement. knew this and Watson after interrogated Watson police despite agreement, gave completed. Watson examination had been polygraph but exculpatory, intended apparently a statement him at the scene placing him by in fact incriminated convicted, court the trial subsequently crime. Watson was substantially on this statement. relying that an dispute nor State majority Neither took retained counsel interrogation of Watson without consequently stage proceedings, at a critical place *11 to the assistance not was entitled disputed it is Watson Amendment to to him the Sixth guaranteed by of his counsel Maryland Art. 21 Constitution and the United States States, 201, S. Rights. United 377 U. Declaration of Massiah v. 1199, 12 (1964). by As stated previously L.Ed.2d 246 84 S. Ct. 627, Warden, 631, 222 A. 2d this Court in Elliott v. 243 Md. (1966): 55 test, an
“Under the Massiah absent effective waiver rights, no inculpatory Amendment Sixth indicted declarant by statement which is made an such against him if will be allowed into evidence does is elicited from the when he statement accused not counsel present.” have
Thus, the
is whether Watson
only issue
Court
before
to the assistance of counsel.1
right
waived
states,
attempting
distinguish this
from Massiah
majority
The
in
case
1.
(1964),
201,
1199,
States,
246
84
12 L.Ed.2d
v. United
Brewer v.
377 U. S.
S. Ct.
(1977),
Williams,
387,
1232,
The majority right that this can This be waived. is, course, however, true. Significantly, majority makes no mention of the rigorous whatsoever standards which must be satisfied a court before find the constitutional has right counsel been waived. Court Supreme recently rigorous reiterated these Williams, 387, 404,
standards in Brewer v. U. 430 S. 97 Ct. S. 1232, (1977): 51 424 L.Ed.2d
“The of Appeals District Court and the understanding also correct in their of the proper applied determining standard the question of waiver a matter of federal constitutional law — that it upon was incumbent State to prove ‘an relinquishment intentional or abandonment of a Zerbst, known or right privilege.’ Johnson v. 304 U. S.,at 464. That standard has reiterated in many been cases. said We have that the to counsel does depend upon a request the defendant. Carnley Cochran, v. 506, 513; Arizona, 369 U. S. cf. Miranda v. S., at indulge 384 U. and that courts every against waiver, reasonable presumption e.g., Janis, 4; supra, Brookhart Glasser v. United States, U. S. 70.” that,
It is clear in order to abundantly establish waiver counsel, defendant’s Sixth Amendment heavy lies “appropriately burden” with the State. Bustamonte, 218, 236, Schneckloth v. U. S. S. Ct. (1973). L.Ed.2d 854 *12 activity” of this speech” “surreptitious and the “Christian burial significant. Williams, supra, example, For in Brewer v. 430 U. was because the Christian burial S. at speech was “tantamount interrogation” the Court stated: requires application “It thus no wooden or technical of the Massiah doctrine to conclude ... was entitled to [the defendant] assistance of counsel....” however, case, In the instant express, and it is hence interrogation manifest that Watson was entitled to assistance of counsel. Whether or Brewer, right here, separate inquiry. is waived as in in Furthermore, emphasized Brewer v. Supreme Court that: Williams, 430 U. S. supra, alleged to an equally applies strict standard “This or at at trial to counsel whether of the waiver proceedings. Schneckloth stage pretrial of a critical 218, 238-240; States Bustamonte, 412 U. S. United v. S., Wade, at 237.” 388 U. therefore, validity of the clear, that the determination
It is the same judged must be waiver alleged Watson’s at trial. attempted this waiver it would receive scrutiny — an regard explicit in this has been Supreme The Court nature understanding and knowing into the examination stated Von As must be conducted. the waiver 316, L. 708, 723-724, Gillies, 68 S. Ct. 332 U. S. Moltke v. (1948): Ed. 309 assuring intelligent duty discharge this
“To [of strong light properly nature of the waiver] of the constitutional against presumption waiver long counsel, investigate must as judge case the circumstances of the and as thoroughly The fact that an accused him demand. before right to counsel him he is informed of his tell right does not and desires to waive this To be responsibility. end the automatically judge’s made with such must be valid waiver charges, of the nature of the apprehension them, range offenses included within statutory thereunder, possible punishments allowable charges and circumstances defenses to the thereof, to a and all other facts essential mitigation A understanding judge matter. broad whole professed can make certain that an accused’s waiver only made understanding^ wisely of counsel is examination comprehensive penetrating from a plea under such a of all the circumstances tendered.” the facts attempt makes no serious to view majority It standards. light long this case in of these established *13 in his own statements, matters “he took the
rests content with This mentally.” a normal individual appears hands be] [and is insufficient. persuades instant case in the of the record
An examination heavy its satisfying of short has fallen me that the State burden. in the a defendant present in the instant case
The facts examination, highly circumstances a polygraph aftermath of polygraph charged by further unsettling, which were It under lying. accused Watson having operator’s this circumstances, faced with these pressure police testimony) to the accusation, (according that Watson incriminating made his interrogator to see his requested statement. purposefully this such as pressure
If psychological confession, it be labeled to elicit a would the State applied by State, App. Md. 31 condemned. Johnson coercive and Cf. However, (1976). if Watson’s 303, A. 2d 504 even 355 of the purposes “voluntary” statement have been Amendment, not I do of the Fifth clause self-incrimination occurred, it believe, in which the circumstances given voluntary “with can deemed implies waiver respect waiver higher standard with ‘regard ... [to] Amendment when Sixth applies to counsel ” Satterfield, 2d 558 F. attached.’ United States v. has dissenting 1977), Judge Friendly, (2d quoting 657 Cir. 1970), (2d Massimo, F. 2d 327 Cir. United States v. L.Ed.2d 633 denied, 1022, 91 S. S. Ct. cert. U. voluntary to find reluctant (1971). This should be circumstances so laden with to counsel in waivers stress stress, or not whether psychological induced the State. intentionally that, on testified Furthermore, interrogator Watson’s him, you Watson, “I understand he stated meeting with to read me, going of all I’m to tell first something but have under the of this statement very form you your rights.” all,” that it was circumstances, i.e., suggests “first of However, followed. of what ignore invitation to substance event, a mere recitation followed was any what alia, Watson, inter litany, telling standard Miranda afford if he could not him a lawyer would furnish State course, inasmuch pertinent litany, hire one. This *14 the lie had taken attorney just and already as Watson interrogator The instructions. upon lawyer’s test his detector of the the services if he to waive not ask wished did Watson v. United States retained. See already he had attorney (7th 1972)(Judge John 1344, 1355 3n. Cir. 460 F. 2d Springer, defendant’s did not contact dissenting). He Paul Stevens 110, 112(10th Thomas, 2d 474 F. v. counsel. United States See 2758, 37 denied, 93 S. Ct. 1973), 412 U. S. cert. Cir. (1973). suggest or Watson explain He did not L.Ed.2d the advice without consequences proceeding possible Gillies, 708. supra, 332 U. S. counsel. Moltke v. Von agreement his interrogator flatly breached Finally, in the Watson by questioning attorney with Watson’s interrogator did not mention The attorney’s absence. made no agreement of the but
agreement. Watson knew disavowing suggest that he was might reference to it which agreement the similar Supreme it. As the said about concluding in Williams, at supra, v. U. S. Brewer no of counsel: that there had been waiver and, particularly agreement knew of that “Williams counsel, on there in view of his consistent reliance it.” concluding is no basis for disavowed advantage to take police present did in the case was What right deprive of the stress of the moment and Watson counsel, expressly a he had and assistance having attorney by “asserted... secured effectively [an who] that no acting agent... police as his had made clear to the Williams, interrogation supra, to occur ....” Brewer 405. U. S. at facts, In the admonition that light these and faced with presumption “indulge every court must reasonable waiver,” finding against agree majority’s I cannot with intelligent voluntary, knowing made a Watson waiver of his to assistance counsel. majority’s noted that the
Finally, additionally must orderly opinion does much to undermine the efficient and ability of a defense The justice. administration of at the while proceedings, in criminal the State cooperate with interests, very is much his client’s protecting time same rely promises on the ability on his dependent Brockman, 277 Md. of the State. Cf. State v. commitments however, (1976).If, breach 2d 376 State 357 A. for such pleasure, at the basis commitments its its same considerations Precisely cooperation vitiated. stated Mr. Justice in the instant case as those apply Williams, 430 U. Stevens, supra, S. concurring in Brewer v. 415: in this case is “Underlying the surface issues rely can fugitive justice whether a from given advice connection lawyer’s defendant voluntarily. to surrender decision *15 lawyer in trial experienced his an Iowa placed trust enforcement in turn trusted the Iowa law who during a authorities to honor commitment made a led negotiations apprehension which potentially dangerous person. any analysis, Under stage the proceeding this critical which professional an participation independent At importance society. to the accused and to of vital — in the law stage as' countless others which — the the life of the profoundly affects individual lawyer through is the essential medium which sovereign are demands and commitments If, run, the long to the citizen. we communicated the individual’s seriously are concerned about counsel, the cannot representation by effective State permitted promise its to this lawyer.” be dishonor addition, wrongly charged In that individuals is obvious cleared might expeditiously with crimes However, given polygraph administration of examinations. examination, in a polygraph inherent psychological stress allowing his I defense imagine competent cannot examination, blithely if the State client to take such an out the defendant not to ignore agreement an as well have might majority presence. counsel’s cooperation keep counsel commanded defense has majority level. The an minimum absolute State interests of serves the managed opinion to fashion I as well as bad law. policy opinion no one. The makes bad reverse. would me state
Judges Digges and Levine have authorized herein. expressed concur with the they views