People v. Hays
Decision Date | 13 April 1967 |
Docket Number | Cr. 2633 |
Citation | 250 Cal.App.2d 96,58 Cal.Rptr. 241 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Leon Ray HAYS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Leon Ray Hays appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict of second degree burglary (Pen.Code, §§ 459, 460). Hays admitted two earlier felony convictions.
At 4:50 a.m., January 10, 1966, Hays was arrested, warned of his constitutional rights required by People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361, and searched. He had $173 on him.
On January 11, 1966, Police Officer Donald Newby advised Hays of his Dorado constitutional rights, obtained his signature on a waiver form, and interrogated him about a burglary which had occurred at his employer's flower shop the night of his arrest. Hays replied he must have done it; he gave Newby consent to search his car. Newby left and searched the car, finding a roll of 5 cent stamps and a screwdriver. Upon his return Newby asked Hays about the stamps. Hays replied: 'Well, yes, I guess I must have taken them when I took the money'. Newby then asked if he would like to talk with Helen Davis, his co-employee and girl friend. Hays said yes. Newby contacted Mrs. Davis.
On January 12, 1966, Mrs. Davis and Hays met in the city jail line-up room. Before Mrs. Davis could speak, Hays blurted out: 'Well, I did it.' Their conversation was recorded by electronic device. Hays was not warned of any constitutional rights on that date. Over objection, the recording was admitted into evidence.
Hays contends in all instances he should have been warned of his right to appointed counsel. Trial occurred in March 1966. This warning applies only in cases in which trial began after June 13, 1966 (People v. Rollins, 65 A.C. 731, 56 Cal.Rptr. 293, 423 P.2d 221; Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; People v. Nicolaus, 65 A.C. 905, fn. at 918, 56 Cal.Rptr. 635, 423 P.2d 787).
Hays asserts he should have been advised of his constitutional rights at the time the conversation was recorded. Twice before he had been warned of his rights and had signed a waiver form. None was required in this instance. A warning is not required unless the police are engaged in a process of interrogation lending itself to eliciting incriminating statements (Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977; People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361). This requirement and others are
(People v. Graves, 64 Cal.2d 208, 210--211, 49 Cal.Rptr. 386, 387, 411 P.2d 114, 115 (cert. denied 385 U.S. 883, 87 S.Ct. 175, 17 L.Ed.2d 11); see also Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 917.)' (People v. Arguello, 65 A.C. 821, 828, 56 Cal.Rptr. 274, 278, 423 P.2d 202, 206.)
Deception alone does not render statements inadmissible unless of a type reasonably likely to procure an untrue statement (People v. Arguello, supra, 65 A.C. 821, 828, 56 Cal.Rptr. 274, 423 P.2d 202; People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, 171, 346 p.2d 764; People v. Bowman, 240 Cal.App.2d 358, 371--372, 49 Cal.Rptr. 772). Accordingly, statements elicited by agents on behalf of police are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hernandez
...absence of this fact no violation of appellant's rights would have been shown even if an answer had been permitted. (People v. Hays, 250 Cal.App.2d 96, 98, 58 Cal.Rptr. 241; People v. Bowman, 240 Cal.App.2d 358, 371, 49 Cal.Rptr. 772.) There is no basis for concluding that the purpose of co......
-
People v. Haydel
...wife and child from captivity. (People v. Arguello (1967), 65 Cal.2d 768, 775, 56 Cal.Rptr. 274, 423 P.2d 202; People v. Hays (1967), 250 Cal.App.2d 96, 98, 58 Cal.Rptr. 241.) The third and fourth statements were signed under pressures emanating from the trickery combined with the continued......
-
United States v. Antonelli
...210 So.2d 424, 425 (1968); State v. Hess, 9 Ariz. App. 29, 449 P.2d 46, 48-49 (Ct.App. 1969); People v. Hays, 250 Cal.App.2d, 96, 97-98, 58 Cal.Rptr. 241, 242-243 (Ct. App., 4th Dist. 1967); Leaver v. State, 237 N.E.2d 368, 371 (Ind.1968); State v. O'Kelly, 181 Neb. 618, 150 N.W.2d 117 (196......
-
People v. Hiser, Cr. 461
...show that one cannot expect to have such privacy. (See People v. Miller, 252 Cal.App.2d 877, 60 Cal.Rptr. 791.) In People v. Hays, 250 Cal.App.2d 96, 58 Cal.Rptr. 241, a woman friend of defendant met with him in a jail room, and the court held that defendant's statement, 'Well, I did it,' w......