State v. Billings
Decision Date | 16 January 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 5334,5334 |
Citation | 84 Nev. 55,436 P.2d 212 |
Parties | The STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Russell Byron BILLINGS, Respondent. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
The State appeals from an order of the district court granting the petition of Russell Byron Billings for a writ of habeas corpus. Billings was charged with the murder of his wife. After a preliminary hearing the Justice of the Peace ordered that he be held to answer in the district court. The petition for habeas thereafter filed challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to hold him for trial. In honoring that challenge the district court expressed its view that the doctrine of Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), rendered inadmissible most of the significant testimony received at the preliminary hearing, and that there was not enough other evidence produced to warrant holding the accused for trial. At all hearings Billings was represented by retained counsel. Since we do not agree with the district court's interpretation of Miranda, we reverse the order granting habeas and direct that Billings be held to answer in the district court.
In the course of the next twenty minutes or so, before Billings was taken to the police station and booked, he continued in a more or less uninterrupted fashion to repeat statements such as he had made at the door, coupled with 'I hope the children are ok, I hope they didn't see it, I shouldn't have done it, she laughed at me,' etc. Chief Mills testified to all statements made from the time of the officers' arrival until Billings was removed from the premises. Billings was placed under arrest, and at approximately 4:30 p.m. was taken to the police station, booked, and locked in a cell.
As Billings was locked in the cell, Officer Case warned him as follows: 'I said, I told him he had a right to legal counsel and the right to legal counsel immediately. He stopped me then, he said 'I know what my rights are, you don't have to tell me.' So then I says, 'No, we've got to tell you this.' I said, 'Anything you say may be held against you, and you do not have to say anything.''
After that warning, Billings continued to talk. He said, 'Do not let the children in the house to see what I have done, because they will hate me for the rest of my life.' 'If she hadn't laughed at me, I don't think I would have done it.'
Two questions were asked of Billings at the police station: What was the address of the deceased's parents, and would he submit to a blood test.
We have related the essence of the incriminating statements of the accused, and the circumstances under which they were uttered. It is to be noted that the Miranda warnings were not given at any time, although an effort to comply was made when Billings was locked in his cell at the police station. Timely objection was made to such evidence at the preliminary hearing. The district court upon review of the transcript of that hearing ruled that all such evidence was precluded by the Miranda doctrine. We think that all of it is admissible and that the officers could listen to Billings talk without observing the procedural safeguards announced in that case.
The underlying theme of Miranda is that police interrogation is inherently compulsive since it normally occurs in a room cut off from the outside world, is usually secret, private and persistent, and is frequently accompanied by deception. As such, it carries a tendency to violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. To effectively secure that privilege procedural safeguards are established. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Guyette v. State
...27 confession) was volunteered, not in response to interrogation, and, therefore, untouched by the Miranda doctrine. State v. Billings, 84 Nev. ---, 436 P.2d 212 (1968). Our ruling on this point comes about by reason of the peculiar circumstances of this case and is not intended to mean tha......
-
Smithart v. State
...(1964) are to protect against the 'potentiality for compulsion' that may be present in custodial interrogation, and in State v. Billings, 84 Nev. 55, 436 P.2d 212 (1968), we held that volunteered statements not the result of police interrogation, are not subject to Miranda Carol Hoag was no......
-
State v. Simoneau
...670, 282 So.2d 107, 111-112 (1973) (same); State v. Chambers, 84 N.M. 309, 502 P.2d 999, 1002 (1972) (same); State v. Billings, 84 Nev. 55, 436 P.2d 212, 213 (1968) ("What's the trouble? "); People v. Ashford, 265 Cal.App.2d 673, 71 Cal.Rptr. 619, 627-28 (1968) ("How's it going, Ashford? ")......
-
People v. McKee
...62, 180 N.W.2d 900; State v. Austin (1970), Or., 465 P.2d 256; State v. Joseph (1969), 252 Or. 610, 451 P.2d 468; State v. Billings (1968), 84 Nev. 55, 436 P.2d 212; United States v. Bourassa (C.A. 10, 1969), 411 F.2d 69; United States v. Godfrey (C.A. 10, 1969), 409 F.2d 1338; see generall......