Com. v. Willman

Citation255 A.2d 534,434 Pa. 489
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. John H. WILLMAN, Appellant.
Decision Date27 June 1969
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Vedder J. White, Will J. Schaaf, Erie, for appellant.

William E. Pfadt, Dist. Atty., Michael M. Palmisano, Asst. Dist. Atty., Richard F. Brabender, Erie, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

Appellant was arrested on July 13, 1963 on a charge of assault with intent to ravish. During the initial interrogation appellant was asked about a murder in a different case, committed in 1960, and appellant admitted that he had committed that crime. Appellant on July 13 and 14 gave several oral statements and a written confession admitting the murder. On July 18, appellant was taken to the Erie County Jail. On August 31, 1963, appellant gave another written confession. In the period between July 18 and August 31, appellant was questioned intermittently by police.

On January 17, 1964, after a pre-trial suppression hearing, appellant's confessions were ruled admissible. On February 9, 1964, appellant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal was taken.

On May 2, 1968, appellant received post conviction relief. The post conviction court held the August 31 confession to have been involuntary and thus inadmissible and granted appellant a new trial. The July 13 and 14 statements and confessions of appellant were held voluntary and were admitted at appellant's retrial over objection. On September 23, 1968 a jury convicted appellant of murder in the second degree, appellant's motion for a new trial was denied, and appellant took this appeal.

Since it is conceded that appellant was not given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) before giving the confessions now at issue, appellant argues that those confessions were erroneously admitted at his second trial. Appellant contends that although his first trial took place before Miranda, his retrial took place after Miranda and thus in the second trial, the Miranda rules apply.

Appellant's contention has recently been rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States as a result compelled by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966), the case which delineated the extent to which Miranda would apply. See Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U.S. 213, 89 S.Ct. 1677, 23 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969). Although both Johnson and Jenkins permit us, as a matter of state law, to apply Miranda more broadly than would the Supreme Court of the United States we choose not to do so.

The opinion in Jenkins indicates that the Court in Johnson was attempting to strike a balance between the need for even-handed administration of justice and administrative burden placed on the law enforcement system by retroactive application. It is not altogether clear, even in light of this, why Johnson utilized a date-of-trial test, rather than the date-of-occurrence test used subsequently in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). It does seem, however, that the Court has wisely chosen in Jenkins to restrict to as great an extent as possible, within the limits of Johnson, the anomalous situation where the police are required to have given Miranda warnings before Miranda had been decided. Since the requirements of Miranda do not go to the validity of the guilt-determining process, it seems fair in striking the balance between individual rights and the administration of criminal justice to limit the retroactive application of the case. See generally Mishkin, Foreward: The High Court, The Great Writ, and the Due Process of Time and Law, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 56 (1965). This is especially true since the voluntariness test, considering the absence of Miranda warnings as a relevant factor, still provides a mechanism to guard against the infringement of individual liberties. See Comment, The Applicability of Miranda to Retrials, 116 U.Pa.L.Rev. 316, 326--27 (1967).

Appellant here indeed does claim that his confessions were involuntary. Although a hearing was held, and the confession declared voluntary in 1964, the court below correctly ruled that it was necessary to make a new determination of voluntariness under the 'evolving' voluntariness test. See Johnson v. New Jersey, supra; Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966). Even under current standards of voluntariness, we believe that appellant's statements and confession of July 13--14 were properly introduced.

Appellant is concededly a mental defective, with I.Q. around 60. However there is no indication in the record that the police took unfair advantage of appellant's mental state, or coerced or imposed upon him in any way. Appellant's questioning began around 10:30 P.M. on July 13, and the original hearing court found that appellant made his initial incriminating statements within 20 minutes of his arrest. He was then questioned until 3:30 A.M. on July 14, when he was given an opportunity to rest. Although appellant now claims that his quarters were inadequate, there is no indication that appellant was unable to sleep, or was at any time exhausted.

Questioning apparently did not recommence until after 1 P.M. on July 14. Appellant was questioned for several hours and was then taken before an alderman to be arraigned on the assault with intent to ravish charge. The murder was not mentioned at the arraignment. After the arraignment, questioning resumed and continued for about 3 1/2 hours until appellant signed a written statement at about 11:30 P.M. * Although appellant was questioned over a twenty-four hour period, the interrogation sessions were separated so that there is no indication that appellant was mentally or physically exhausted nor was his will overborne by constant questioning. The fact that appellant was allowed to retire long before the police had achieved their desired aims indicates that they did Not intend to utilize exhaustion as a mechanism to gain further admissions from appellant. Compare Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1959). Appellant made his initial admission almost immediately, at a time when there is no question that his statements could be anything but voluntary. This, of course, does not necessarily validate his later admissions, see Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 54--55, 82 S.Ct. 1209, 1212--1213, 8 L.Ed.2d 325 (1962), but after the first statement, the record indicates that the police were interested in filling in the details, and perhaps in making sure that appellant's origina admission was true and not the product of confusion. Certainly appellant could have benefited by the warnings now required by Miranda, and he is probably the type of prisoner who most needs an attorney's aid, but in an atmosphere otherwise free of coercion, the absence of Miranda warnings is certainly not fatal to a finding of voluntariness.

Appellant argues that while the police acted as his friend, their motivation was to induce a confession. Even assuming that on this record, appellant has established that the mental state of the police was as he claims, this is not enough to alone invalidate the confession. There is no question that it is perfectly proper for the police to question prisoners in an attempt to elicit confessions or alternatively to solve a crime or perhaps even absolve a suspect. See Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U.S. 504, 78 S.Ct. 1297, 2 L.Ed.2d 1523 (1958); Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958). In Pre-Miranda cases our inquiry is whether the Means used to gain the confession caused the confession to be involuntary. A friendly attitude toward the prisoner is hardly the type of police conduct which leads to a finding of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Campana
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 4, 1973
    ......Whiting, 439 Pa. 205,. 266 A.2d 738 (1970); Commonwealth v. Singleton, 439 Pa. 185,. 266 A.2d 753 (1970), cf. Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 491, 255 A.2d 534, 535 (1969), where this Court. acknowledged its power to extend Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, ......
  • Com. v. Bracey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 3, 1983
    ...interrogation. The means employed by police to extract confessions were the traditional focus of concern. See Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 255 A.2d 534 (1969). Initially, the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause prohibited the states from using an accused's ......
  • Com. v. Chacko
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • April 27, 1983
    ...441 Pa. 41, 271 A.2d 257 (1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 1004, 91 S.Ct. 1243, 28 L.Ed.2d 540 (1971) (I.Q. 71-76); Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 255 A.2d 534 (1969) (I.Q. 60); Commonwealth ex rel. Joyner v. Brierley, 429 Pa. 156, 239 A.2d 434 (1968) (I.Q. 80). Rather, the determination......
  • Com. v. Campana
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • May 4, 1973
    ...v. Whiting, 439 Pa. 205, 266 A.2d 738 (1970); Commonwealth v. Singleton, 439 Pa. 185, 266 A.2d 753 (1970), cf. Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 491, 255 A.2d 534, 535 (1969), where this Court acknowledged its power to extend Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT