Laury v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1969 |
| Parties | Percy LAURY, Jr. and George Porter, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Appeal from Superior Court. Affirmed.
Edward Z. Sobocinski, Asst. Public Defender, Wilmington, for defendants below, appellants.
John G. Mulford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for plaintiff below, appellee.
On this appeal from robbery convictions, it is contended that admission of statements obtained from the defendants by police, and identification of the defendants by the victim, fatally tainted the convictions. We disagree.
As to the statements: At the scene of the street-corner robbery, and within minutes thereafter, the police found the defendants there and questioned them without the usual Miranda warnings. * Immediately thereafter, the defendants were taken to the police station where they were promptly questioned again, this time with the required Miranda warnings. Exculpatory statements were given by the defendants at the police station substantially identical to those given by them at the scene of the crime. At the trial, the statements made at the scene were not admitted in evidence, but the statements made at the police station were. Objection is made to the admission of the latter statements on the ground that they were the 'tainted fruit' of the first.
We find this thesis unacceptable. The practicalities of effective police investigation at the scene, immediately after the commission of a crime, require the police to have an unrestricted scope of general interrogation as to those found there. It is unreasonable to expect the police to perform their initial investigatory function at the scene of a crime under the restrictions of the Miranda rules. Neither the Miranda case, nor its progeny, require such restriction and we decline to extend the Miranda rules to the routine, initial, on-scene investigation by the police. To do so would amount, in our opinion, to an unwarranted 'constitutional straight-jacket' on law enforcement. The Miranda rules are first applicable at the accusatory stage or during custodial interrogation. See Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969). There is no showing in the instant case to establish that the controlling stage of accusation or custodial interrogation, as defined in the cited cases, had been reached as to these defendants when the investigating police officers' questions were put to them, and answered by them, at the scene of the crime.
We hold, therefore, that the earlier statements at the scene of the crime were not improperly obtained. It follows that the later statements made at the police station were not rendered inadmissible by reason of the earlier statements.
In addition to the Miranda case, the defendants rely upon United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947) and Commonwealth v. Banks, 429 Pa. 53, 239 A.2d 416 (1968). The cited cases are inapplicable on their facts.
There was no error in admitting the defendants' statements.
As to the identification of the defendants by the victim: There was a confrontation of the defendants by the victim at a preliminary hearing in the Municipal Court, held eleven days after the crime, at which the defendants were represented by counsel. This was the first confrontation. There is dispute as to whether at that hearing the victim identified the defendants as his assailants. At the trial, however, the victim did make such identification.
The defendants contend that the identifications were illegal. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reddick
...against the obvious suggestiveness in any courtroom identification confrontation is his right to cross-examination. Laury v. State, 260 A.2d 907, 909 (Del.1969); State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500, 516 (La.1978); Cooper v. State, 599 P.2d 419, 422 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); see Manson v. Brathwaite, 4......
-
State v. Smith
... ... Mangrum v. State, 155 Ga.App. 334, 335, 270 S.E.2d 874 (1980)." State v. Nelson, supra, 4 Conn.App. 516, 495 A.2d 298. The defendant's protection against the obvious suggestiveness in any courtroom identification confrontation is his right to cross-examination. Laury v. State, 260 A.2d 907, 909 (Del.1969); State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500, 516 (La.1978); Cooper v. State, 599 P.2d 419, 422 (Okla.Crim.App.1979); see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113 n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 2252 n. 14, 53 L.Ed.2d 140 (1977). The innate weakness in any in-court testimonial ... ...
-
Hammond v. State
...that the rules established in Miranda do not apply to "the routine, initial, on-scene investigation by the police." Laury v. State, Del.Supr., 260 A.2d 907, 908 (1969). In this case, the police were unable to obtain identification of the crash vehicle's occupants at the scene, because they ......
-
People v. Horne
...United States v. Cole, 449 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 931, 92 S.Ct. 991, 30 L.Ed.2d 806 (1972); Laury v. State, 260 A.2d 907 (Del.1969); People v. Finch, 47 Ill.2d 425, 266 N.Ed.2d 97 (1970); Commonwealth v. Wheeler, 3 Mass.App. 387, 331 N.E.2d 815 (1975). As the court......