Hines v. State

• Decision Date: 18 March 1980
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 933
• Citation: Hines v. State, 384 So.2d 1171 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)
• Parties: Thomas Lee HINES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1171

384 So.2d 1171

Thomas Lee HINES v.STATE.

6 Div. 933.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 18, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1980.

U. W. Clemon of Adams & Clemon, Birmingham, Elaine R. Jones, Brent E. Simmons, James Liebman, Jack Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

In an atmosphere infected with racial conflict and tension the black defendant was convicted for the rape of a white Decatur railway clerk.Sentence was fixed at thirty years' imprisonment.

Although several issues have been raised on appeal, the most significant one involves the defendant's mental subnormality as affecting the voluntariness and admissibility of his confession.

I

Under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Alabama, any suspect of a crime is guaranteed the right of assistance of counsel and the right to remain silent during in-custody police interrogation.So sacred are these rights that any statement obtained in violation of them is inadmissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding.Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966).The suspect may, of course, waive these rights provided that the waiver is knowingly and intelligently made.Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461(1938).However, the United States Supreme Court has stated:

"(A) heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel.Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490, n. 14, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 1764, 12 L.Ed.2d 977.This Court has always set high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461(1938), and we reassert these standards as applied to in-custody interrogation."

Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628.

An extrajudicial confession is prima facie involuntary and inadmissible.C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 200.02(1)(3rd ed. 1977).The prosecution must prove "at least by a preponderance of the evidence" that the confession was voluntary.Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618(1972).

The major question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence in the record sustains the trial court's determination that the "high standards of proof" for the waiver of constitutional rights were met in this case.We conclude that it does not.

On Monday, May 22, 1978, the defendant came to the court reporting office of Barbara Woods in the Morgan County Press Building in Decatur and asked for a job.Mrs. Woods told him that she did not have any employment available.

The next morning, May 23, the defendant returned to the office and "peered" in the windows on both the east and south sides of the building.Mrs. Woods telephoned the police between 10:00 and 10:30 A.M.

Officer Keith Russell and his partner of the Decatur Police Department responded to the call and talked to Mrs. Woods.They obtained a description and searched the area with a total of six officers.Within a short time they found the defendant filling out a job application ¹ at Automatic Screw Machine Company which was located only a short distance across an adjacent parking lot from Mrs. Woods' office.

Officer Russell recognized the defendant from having seen him on two prior occasions and knew his name "from working the area and knowing the names of some of the people."He had known the defendant for six or seven months.Russell stepped inside and asked, "Tommy, would you mind stepping outside for a moment and talking with me?"Russell initially testified that the defendant replied "sure," but later stated that the defendant did not say anything at that time but just stepped outside with him.

Because of the alleged activities of the defendant that morning, "peeking in the windows, acting suspicious," and because Officer Russell thought that the defendant matched the description of a rape suspect ², Officer Russell immediately read the defendant his constitutional rights from a printed card.Officer Russell stated that he did not read the defendant his constitutional rights "in one phrase" and did not read the "whole thing" at one time but "asked him in between those phrases like anything you say will be used against you in Court do you understand your constitutional rights."The defendant indicated that he understood his rights and wished to talk.Officer Russell then "frisked"the defendant for weapons.Officer Russell testified that the defendant became nervous and agitated after being read his rights and "began looking around rather nervous."

When the defendant denied looking in Mrs. Woods' windows, he was placed in the back seat of a patrol car and driven to Mrs. Woods' office, where he was identified.Officer Russell then radioed Detective Sergeants Doyle Ward and Robert Clark and told them he had a suspect in custody.He testified, "I worded it ten-fifteen, J.W., that means I have a prisoner in custody," and he told them he had someone that they needed to talk with.After the defendant was identified, he was still nervous and agitated and put his head in his hands.Officer Russell testified, "I asked Tommy if he would go down to City Hall with us to talk with the detectives and also explained again in plain language that he did not have to do so and also his constitutional rights without using the card."³The defendant stated that he understood and would "be glad" to go.⁴

On the way to City Hall, according to Officer Russell, the defendant became "nervous and agitated" and placed "his head in his hands and began rocking back and forth."The defendant was becoming "increasingly agitated" and his behavior indicated to Officer Russell that "something was bothering him."Russell asked the defendant"keeping in mind what your constitutional rights are, why don't you get it off your chest, it is bothering you," and the defendant stated, "I know."Officer Russell continued:

"I then said why don't you tell me about it, got no response and then I believe I asked him again, I said when was the last time you went to the post office and he stated six weeks ago.I then asked what did you do with the can and he said I threw it in the garbage.I said how many women have you raped, two or three, and he stated three."

Officer Russell said he then stopped questioning the defendant: "I felt in my mind that I should not go any further."

Officer Russell described the defendant's "emotional appearance":

"Once, when we stepped outside the Automatic Screw Machine Companyhe became rather agitated and nervous, he became increasingly so as we went up and had him identified and put him in the rear of the patrol unit, talk(ed) with him a moment and let the ladies look at him.I told him just to relax, everything will be fine and he became nervous on the way to City Hall, agitated."

Russell did not know that the defendant was retarded and "assumed" that he understood what was "going on."Officer Russell stated that the defendant answered his questions "coherently in his speaking, not slurring of the words or anything of that nature" although his responses were "somewhat slow."Officer Russell was "convinced that he understood his rights without any coercion," and testified, "I felt he understood his rights completely."However, Russell did not know if the defendant understood the phrase "constitutional rights."

Officer Russell said he and the defendant arrived at City Hall "right at 10:30 A.M." and the defendant was turned over to Detective Sergeants Ward and Clark.At this time Sergeant Ward had interviewed neither any suspects nor the victim of the rape for which the defendant was later tried and convicted.

In an office in the detective division, Sergeant Clark advised the defendant of his rights from a printed form.The defendant indicated that he understood his rights.To Sergeant Ward, the defendant was "basically calm, . . . considering the circumstances."Sergeant Clark asked the defendant to take the form and read it.The defendant looked at the form, and then, according to Sergeant Ward:

"Sergeant Clark asked Mr. Hines if he understood his rights, Mr. Hines stated he did, Sergeant Clark then asked Mr. Hines if he understood he didn't have to talk to us, he had the right to have an attorney present."

The defendant indicated that he understood, and at 10:35 A.M. he signed a waiver of rights, signing his name as "TOMMY iNESH."Sergeant Clark then interrogated the defendant about "another matter" under investigation.At approximately 11:00 A.M. the defendant directed Ward and Clark to the scene of another rape and gave them the details surrounding the crime.They returned and the defendant was placed in the city jail around 11:45 A.M. Sergeant Ward stated that the defendant was "cooperative" during this interview session, and that the defendant did not cry or shake.Ward said he knew that the defendant"did not read well" but did not know that he was mentally retarded.

At 1:30 P.M. Sergeant Clark again advised the defendant of his constitutional rights, using a printed form.According to Sergeant Ward:

"Sergeant Clark asked him if he understood and he stated he did.At this point Sergeant Clark again gave him the form and asked him to read it, he looked at it and handed it back to Sergeant Clark.Sergeant Clark asked him if he understood his rights and he stated he did and Sergeant Clark again asked him if he understood, he didn't have to talk to us and that he had the right to have an attorney present and Mr. Hines stated that he did and Sergeant Clark again asked the subject to sign the form."

The defendant signed "TOMMY iNES."

At this time the detectives "discussed some other matters" with the defendant.At 1:30 P.M. Ward and Clark took a written...