Com. v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 25 March 1974
• Citation: 318 A.2d 334,455 Pa. 353
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Heriberto LOPEZ, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 334

318 A.2d 334

455 Pa. 353

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Heriberto LOPEZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 25, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 6, 1974.

Leonard J. Gajewski, Reading, for appellant.

Robert L. VanHoove, Dist. Atty., Grant E. Wesner, Deputy Dist. Atty., James R. Hevalow, Asst. Dist. Atty., Reading, for appellee.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION

JONES, Chief Justice.

During the late evening of March 6, 1971, Ramon C. Santiago was shot in the hallway of his apartment in Reading, Pennsylvania. Witnesses heard gunshots and saw a man run from the building and drive away in a black 1959 Chevrolet occupied by one or more persons. Police were called, and the body of Santiago was found. A radio broadcast describing the getaway car was immediately issued, and approximately one hour later, two Reading police officers spotted such a vehicle. They followed and stopped the car and requested the driver, Lopez, to produce identification, either owner's or operator's cards, which he could not do. ¹ Appellant was taken to the police station and given the Miranda warnings in Spanish through the regular police interpreter. After waiving counel, he was interrogated in Spanish again through the interpreter in regard to the Santiago shooting. No formal charges had been lodged.

After first denying any knowledge of the shooting, appellant orally confessed in English to a police detective while out of the interpreter's presence for a few minutes. He subsequently repeated the confession in Spanish to the interpreter who took notes in Spanish and translated them into English, from which an English statement was prepared. The interpreter translated and explained the typed statement to appellant, who then signed it. Appellant was thereafter charged with murder, tried by jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County on September 24, 1971, found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to a term of 8 to 20 years. A pre-trial motion to suppress the oral statement had been denied on June 2, 1971, as were post-trial motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. On appeal, we now affirm.

Appellant raises no less than twelve allegations of error in the proceedings of the trial court. Initially, he contends that his warrantless arrest was illegal as not based upon probable cause and that it therefore tainted the subsequent oral and written statements. In the suppression petition, appellant did not raise the illegality of his arrest. Not until post-trial motions was the issue raised, and the trial court properly concluded that this basis for suppression had been waived, relying upon Rule 323 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, 19 P.S. Appendix, ² and Commonwealth v. Turra, 442 Pa. 192, 275 A.2d 96 (1971). There are no circumstances in this case that would mandate a different result. ³

Appellant next alleges that he was unable to intelligently and voluntarily waive counsel because he had not been informed of the exact nature of the crime for which he was being investigated. It is well-settled law in this Commonwealth that a defendant is sufficiently alerted to the possibility of involvement in a criminal homicide case once he is aware that the victim's death is under investigation. Commonwealth v. McIntyre, 451 Pa. 42 301 A.2d 832 (1973); Commonwealth v. Boykin, 450 Pa. 25, 298 A.2d 258 (1972); Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 445 Pa. 364, 284 A.2d 717 (1971); Commonwealth v. Cooper, 444 Pa. 122, 297 A.2d 108 (1971). Both the detective who received the first oral confession and the police interpreter testified that appellant had been told in Spanish upon arrival at the police station that he would be questioned about 'Sanitiago's shooting' and 'about the murder,' and that appellant was aware of his status as a suspect. The judge at the suppression hearing found that Lopez had been award of the crime under investigation, and in view of the evidence before him, we cannot find error in this determination.

A third contention of the appellant is that there was insufficient proof of his understanding of English to justify admissibility of an oral confession made to the detective in the absence of the interpreter. We must concur in the trial judge's finding that the activity of the interpreter during preparation of and prior to the signing of the written statement effectively resolved any language difficulties. Furthermore, admissibility of the oral statement was not a critical issue in this case, and error in its admission would be harmless. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

Appellant contends that the trial judge committed error in admitting the signed statement of confession because the Commonwealth failed to produce the original notes of the oral confession in Spanish and the English translations thereof and because it was not a sufficiently complete statement. The evidence indicates that after being advised of his rights, appellant waived counsel and told the police that he had nothing to add to the written statement which had been fully translated and explained to him in Spanish. While we agree with the trial judge that the failure of the police to preserve the interim notes and translations used in the compilation of the written statement was not a reasonable act, it was not a prejudicial one. Appellant has never maintained that the signed statement was materially different in language or construction from his previous statements in Spanish.

Upon review of the proceedings at trial, we are unable to find reversible error in the charge to the jury. In the first of numerous citations of error, appellant asserts that the judge wrongfully charged on the issue of self-defense. However, the record indicates that his counsel approved the court's explanation to the jury that appellant had chosen to litigate the issue of guilt or innocence rather than to admit the act of shooting, the...