Commonwealth v. Champney

• Decision Date: 24 April 2013
• Citation: 65 A.3d 386
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant/Appellee On Cross Appeal v. Ronald Grant CHAMPNEY, Appellee/Appellant On Cross Appeal.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

65 A.3d 386

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant/Appellee On Cross Appeal

v.Ronald Grant CHAMPNEY, Appellee/Appellant On Cross Appeal.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Sept. 1, 2009.

Decided April 24, 2013.

Nos. 574 CAP, 575 CAP, Appeal from the Order entered on June 3, 2008 in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Schuylkill County at No. CP–54–CR–00012444–1998.

Andrea F. McKenna, Esq., Amy Zapp, Esq., PA Office of Attorney General, for Appellant.

Samuel J.B. Angell, Esq., David Lee Zuckerman, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, Angela S. Elleman, Esq., for Appellee.

Before: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of April, 2013, the Court being evenly divided, the Order of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the decision of this case.

Justice BAER files an opinion in support of affirmance in which Justice SAYLOR and Justice TODD join.

Justice EAKIN files an opinion in support of reversal in which Chief Justice CASTILLE and Justice McCAFFERY join.

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE

Justice BAER.

This case involves cross-appeals from the order of the Schuylkill County Common Pleas Court, which granted Ronald Grant Champney (“Champney”) a new trial under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–9546. The common pleas court (hereinafter “PCRA court”) awarded a new trial based on five separate instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. I would affirm the PCRA court's grant of a new trial on the ground that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of certain statements Champney made to police in the absence of counsel, after Champney had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to an attorney.

As Champney's claim alleges the ineffective assistance of counsel, I begin by reiterating the applicable standard. To prove counsel ineffective, the petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) the underlying issue has arguable merit; (2) counsel's actions lacked an objective reasonable basis; and (3) the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's act or omission. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987). To determine the arguable merit of Champney's ineffectiveness claim, the underlying claim alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to an attorney must be examined.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court declared that an accused has a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation. Id. at 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The right to counsel established in Miranda was intended to ensure that the defendant's right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected. In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the High Court expanded upon its holding in Miranda and adopted a prophylactic rule that “when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.” Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484, 101 S.Ct. 1880. The High Court explained that an accused, “having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Id. at 484–85, 101 S.Ct. 1880. The reasoning behind such ruling is “to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights.” Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 350, 110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293 (1990).

For the Miranda/Edwards rule to apply, there must be an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel, a requisite the Opinion in Support of Reversal finds lacking. The Supreme Court explained in Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) that “to avoid difficulties of proof and to provide guidance to officers conducting interrogations,” the determination of whether the right to counsel was invoked by the accused is an “objective inquiry.” Id. at 458–59, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Effective assertion of the Fifth Amendment right to counsel “requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney in dealing with custodial interrogation by the police.” McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) (emphasis omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Fears, 575 Pa. 281, 836 A.2d 52, 61 (2003) (quoting McNeil 's holding in this regard). If the accused makes an ambiguous or equivocal reference that would lead an officer, in light of the circumstances, to believe that the accused might be invoking the right to counsel, the police interrogation need not cease. Davis, 512 U.S. at 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (emphasis supplied). Instead, the suspect must “articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.” Id.

The facts of Davis illustrate this point. There, during an interrogation conducted by law enforcement officers concerning a murder, the defendant stated, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” Id., 512 U.S. at 455, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Unsure as to whether the comment constituted an invocation of the right to counsel, the officers asked the defendant whether he was requesting a lawyer, to which he responded, “No, I'm not asking for a lawyer.” Id. The interrogation resumed and the defendant made incriminating statements. Thereafter, the defendant stated, “I think I want a lawyer before I state anything else,” id., and the questioning ceased.

The focus of the inquiry during the appeal in Davis was whether the defendant had invoked his right to counsel when he stated, “maybe” he should talk to a lawyer, but thereafter clarified that he was “not asking for a lawyer.” ¹ The United States Supreme Court declined the defendant's invitation to extend Edwards and require law enforcement officers to cease questioning immediately upon the making of an ambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney. Id. at 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Such a ruling, the Court reasoned, would needlessly serve as an obstacle to legitimate police investigative activity. Id. at 460, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Instead, the Court ruled that unless the suspect actually requests an attorney, questioning may continue. Id. at 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Acknowledging that it was “good practice” for law enforcement officers to further question the accused to clarify ambiguous references to counsel, the Court declined to adopt a rule requiring officers to ask clarifying questions. Id. at 461–62, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Emphasizing that the lower courts construed “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” as not constituting a request for counsel, the Supreme Court saw no reason to disturb that conclusion. Id. at 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350.

The instant case is distinguishable from Davis because Champney did not use the equivocal term “maybe,” and did not provide a second statement contradicting his initial desire to speak with counsel. Instead, he declared, “I think I want to talk to Frank Cori [his attorney] before I make a statement.” Contrary to the Opinion in Support of Reversal, I do not believe that employment of the phrase “I think,” in and of itself, renders the statement equivocal, as such term can be colloquially used to express one's beliefs and not to suggest that one is pondering or contemplating an action. Viewing Champney's reference in light of what a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have understood the statement to mean, as Davis expressly directs, the PCRA court concluded that the import of the statement was clear. It found that Champney was not merely deliberating as to whether he might want an attorney, but rather was responding directly to Sergeant Shinskie's point blank inquiry, “Did you shoot Roy Bensinger?” Faced with the most obvious request for an admission of guilt, Champney replied, “I think I should talk to Frank Cori before I make a statement.” ² The PCRA court viewed this statement as a declaration of a desire to consult with a particular counsel prior to any further interrogation, and there is no basis in law or in fact to disturb this conclusion.

Having determined that the PCRA court properly held, on the basis of an adequately supported record, that Champney invoked his right to counsel, I next examine the effect such action has on the admissibility of his subsequent statements. One of the series of statements at issue was made on May 13, 1998, when Champney was being questioned by Sergeant Shinskie in a conference at the Schuykill County Prison, where he remained incarcerated on unrelated robbery charges, and had not yet been charged with the instant murder. Despite Champney's prior indication in his statement of December 23, 1997, declaring that he would want Frank Cori present if questioned about the Roy Bensinger homicide, Sergeant Shinskie provided Champney with the standard Miranda warnings and obtained a written waiver of Champney's right to counsel.³

During the interview on May 13, 1998, when Sergeant Shinskie informed Champney that people had implicated him in Roy Bensinger's murder, Champney responded by asking the officer what he was “looking at.” N.T., Mar. 22, 1999, at 8. Sergeant Shinskie believed this comment to mean that Champney wanted to know the probable jail time he would be facing if convicted of the murder. Id. When Sergeant Shinskie indicated that he would have to talk to the District Attorney regarding any deals, Champney directed him to get the District Attorney so that Champney could “lay it out” for...