Commonwealth v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 07 October 1977
• Citation: 379 A.2d 72,474 Pa. 512
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Ronald JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

379 A.2d 72

474 Pa. 512

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Ronald JOHNSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

October 7, 1977

Argued Jan. 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 10, 1977.

Joseph N. Bongiovanni, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist Atty., David Richman, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div Mark Sendrow, Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS Justice.

Appellant Ronald Johnson was indicted on charges of murder, rape and conspiracy arising out of the May 9, 1970 killing of Sharon Pruitt. The case was originally brought to trial on March 22, 1972, but ended in a mistrial. The court appointed new counsel, who filed a pre-trial application to suppress. The application was granted as to certain evidence seized by the police, but denied as to a typewritten statement taken from appellant by the police. The case proceeded to trial on January 3, 1973, and the jury found appellant guilty of rape, conspiracy, and murder of the second degree. Post-verdict motions were denied, and appellant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of eight to eighteen years on the murder and rape convictions. Sentence was suspended on the conspiracy conviction. In this appeal ^[1] appellant contends that the statement taken from him was obtained through the exploitation of an unlawful search and should have been suppressed as the fruit of that illegality. We agree, ^[2] reverse judgments of sentence and grant appellant a new trial.

I.

On Sunday, May 10, 1970, the body of the victim, who had been sexually abused, was discovered in the rear yard of a vacant house next door to appellant's house in Philadelphia. The body was next to a fence separating the two houses, and the police concluded the body had been thrown over the fence from appellant's yard. ^[3] The police entered appellant's house, without first obtaining a search warrant, and found evidence of the crime, including bloodied sheets and female clothing. The police then questioned appellant's neighbors and determined that appellant was the occupant of the house.

Appellant was taken into custody near his house at 5:30 p. m., May 10, 1970. Before taking appellant to the Police Administration Building, the police told him they wanted to question him about the crime, but appellant made no response. Appellant was so intoxicated he was staggering, and apparently had to be helped to the police car.

When he arrived at the Police Administration Building at 6:15 p. m., appellant was placed in an interrogation room and given Miranda warnings. ^[4] The police then told appellant about the evidence of the crime which had been found in his house. ^[5] Appellant responded: "I want to tell you what I know. I gave a key to somebody last night. I'm not taking the rap for anybody." Appellant said he gave the key to William Holden. At 6:30 p. m. appellant was left alone in the interrogation room to try to sober up."

At 7:30 p. m., appellant was given a sandwich and coffee. He was left alone in the interrogation room from 8:55 p. m. until 10:15 p. m. At 10:15 p. m. appellant's wife arrived at the police station. Appellant's wife and a police detective discussed the crime with appellant from 10:15 p. m. until 11:15 p. m., but obtained no additional information. ^[6] From 11:15 p. m. until 11:50 p. m., appellant and his wife were left alone in the interrogation room. After his wife left, appellant was left alone for 40 minutes, until 12:30 a. m., Monday, May 11, when he was given food and coffee. At 1:10 a. m., appellant was allowed to sleep in a metal chair in the interrogation room.

Appellant was awakened at 9:10 a. m., Monday, May 11, and given a meal. By this time appellant appeared sober. Another interrogation began at 9:45 a. m. Appellant again was told about the evidence found in his house, ^[7] and also was told of information obtained from William Holden, whom the police had taken into custody after appellant identified him the night before. Appellant then made an incriminating statement. ^[8] The interrogation ended at 10:15 a. m., and appellant was left alone until 10:45 a. m.

At 10:45 a. m., a police officer administered to appellant a polygraph examination, which lasted until 12:50 p. m. Appellant then was fed and left alone until 2:40 p. m.

Appellant was then "confronted" with William Holden, who had previously given an inculpatory statement to the police which implicated appellant. Appellant, Holden, and police detectives were together for approximately 10 minutes, after which the detectives left appellant and Holden together for another 30 minutes. Appellant was left alone from 3:30 until 3:45 p. m. Appellant then made another inculpatory statement, which was typed by the police and signed by appellant at 6:05 p. m., May 11. This was the typewritten statement admitted at trial. During the entire period after the morning interrogation session began at 9:45 a. m. until the statement was signed at 6:06 p. m., except for when appellant was taken to the restroom and to the polygraph room, appellant was handcuffed to a metal chair attached to the floor of the interrogation room.

II.

The suppression court ruled that the evidence seized from appellant's house was inadmissible because it was taken during an unlawful warrantless search. The court concluded, however, that the illegality of the search did not require suppression of the typewritten statement later taken from appellant. We agree with the suppression court that the search of appellant's house violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S.Const. amends. IV, XIV, Pa.Const. art. I, § 8. We further conclude that the statement taken from appellant was the product of that illegality and therefore cannot agree with the suppression court that the statement was admissible at trial.

A. The Commonwealth argues that the search of appellant's house was lawful. We cannot agree. Assuming that the Commonwealth had probable cause to search appellant's home, the search would still be unlawful unless there were exigent circumstances justifying the search without first obtaining a warrant. Commonwealth v. Platou, 455 Pa. 258, 312 A.2d 29, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3183, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974). There were no exigent circumstances here. The condition of the body made it clear that the body had been disposed of several hours earlier, making it unreasonable to assume the criminal was still in the area trying to make an escape or to destroy evidence. Indeed, when the police entered appellant's house they did not believe anyone was home. See United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951); Commonwealth v. Linde, 448 Pa. 230, 293 A.2d 62, cert. dismissed, 409 U.S. 1031, 93 S.Ct. 523, 34 L.Ed.2d 482 (1972); Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 421 Pa. 169, 218 A.2d 249 (1966).

B. Evidence obtained in violation of an individual's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against him at trial. Commonwealth v. Platou, 455 Pa. 258, 312 A.2d 29, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3183, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974). Because the search of appellant's house was in violation of his constitutional rights, the typewritten statement taken from him is inadmissible unless the Commonwealth can establish it is sufficiently purged of any taint of the unlawful activity. See Commonwealth v. Farley, 468 Pa. 487, 364 A.2d 299 (1976); Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 461 Pa. 407, 336 A.2d 603 (1975); Commonwealth v. Cephas, 447 Pa. 500, 291 A.2d 106 (1972) (Opinion of Eagen J., joined by O'Brien and Pomeroy, JJ.). The test for the admissibility of such evidence is

" 'whether, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.' "

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 483, 83 S.Ct. 407, 417, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), quoting Maguire, Evidence of Guilt, 221 (1959). Accord, Commonwealth v. Banks, 429 Pa. 53, 239 A.2d 416 (1968).

In this case, the typewritten statement used against appellant at trial was obtained as a direct result of the unlawful search. The police obtained the statement as a result of three factors: (1) appellant's arrest and the extended custodial interrogation which followed; (2) confrontation of appellant with the fact that evidence had been obtained during the unlawful search of his house; and (3) confrontation of appellant with information obtained from William Holden. Each of these three factors, in turn, is directly attributable to the unlawful search.

1.

Appellant's arrest was a direct result of the unlawful search. Before searching appellant's house, the police did not suspect that appellant had committed the crime. Only after searching appellant's house, and finding incriminating evidence, did the police seek to ascertain appellant's identity. Police detectives searched the house on the afternoon of May 10, 1970. The detectives then ascertained appellant's identity from neighbors, and left to find him. They found appellant at an address around the corner from appellant's house, and arrested him at 5:30 p. m., May 10. Appellant was in custody continuously from the time of this arrest until the typewritten statement was taken from him during the interrogation session which began at 3:45 p. m. the following afternoon. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant's statement "resulted from 'an intervening act of a free will.' " Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. at 486, 83 S.Ct. at 416. The statement must be attributed to the arrest of...