State v. Blanford

• Decision Date: 13 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 64366,64366
• Citation: 306 N.W.2d 93
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terrance Joseph BLANFORD, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 93

306 N.W.2d 93

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Terrance Joseph BLANFORD, Appellant.

No. 64366.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 13, 1981.

Walter W. Rothschild, Waterloo, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Lona Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Considered by LeGRAND, P. J., and UHLENHOPP, McCORMICK, ALLBEE, and SCHULTZ, JJ.

LeGRAND, Justice.

Culminating a stormy domestic relationship, defendant was charged with attempt to commit murder in assaults upon both Harold Hickman, his father-in-law, and Leola Hickman, his mother-in-law, in violation of section 707.11, Supplement to The Code 1977. He was also charged with the crime of burglary in violation of section 713.2, Supplement to The Code 1977, committed by breaking into the Hickman home in connection with the assaults upon them. Following a bench trial, the court found defendant innocent on the two charges of attempted murder, but convicted him in each case of the included offense of assault with intent to inflict serious injury in violation of section 708.1, Supplement to The Code 1977. He was sentenced to serve not more than two years on each assault charge and not more than twenty-five years on the burglary conviction.

Defendant asserts four grounds for reversal:

1. Error in requiring him to submit to an in-custody psychiatric evaluation while he was at liberty on bond.

2. Error in relying on facts not in evidence.

3. Error in allowing Police Officer Dwyer to testify concerning oral statements made by defendant after his arrest.

4. Error in failing to comply with defendant's request for a special finding concerning his defense of diminished responsibility.

I. We consider first the alleged error in receiving Officer Dwyer's testimony. This raises the question whether defendant's incriminating statements to the officer were made in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Before defendant was questioned, he was given his Miranda rights. He made inquiry concerning how to obtain an attorney. He was told that if he could not afford a lawyer, the court would appoint one for him without charge. He did not then request one. The defendant signed a waiver and thereafter made certain statements in response to police interrogation. At some point he asked for an attorney, and questioning immediately stopped. The specific error asserted here is that he was given erroneous, misleading, and confusing information concerning his right to have an attorney during interrogation, which motivated him to make statements he would not otherwise have made.

To put this matter in proper perspective, we detail the circumstances under which defendant was interrogated at the Waterloo police station.

After committing the assaults on the Hickmans, defendant left the scene and drove to Des Moines. Realizing the authorities would be looking for him, he determined to give himself up. He returned to Waterloo and surrendered himself at the police station, where he was promptly placed under arrest by Officers Dwyer and Damon. His Miranda rights were read to him and a "standard" waiver form was submitted to him, which he signed. We set it out in full:

W A I V E R

I, Terrance Joseph Blanford, have been informed at 10:45 P.M. o'clock on the 9th day of October, 1978:

a. That I have the right not to talk with or say anything to Det. Dwyer and Det. Damon whom I know to be members of the Waterloo, Iowa Police Department.

b. That anything I say can and will later be used against me in a Court of Law.

c. That I have the right to speak or confer with an attorney prior to and during any interrogation by members of the Waterloo, Iowa Police Department, and that if I cannot afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed by the court to represent me before any questioning, if I wish one.

Having read this Waiver and been informed orally of the contents of it and understanding the nature of these rights, I do consent to talk with these members of the Waterloo, Iowa Police Department.

WITNESSES:

SIGNED: Terry Blanford

S. E. Dwyer III

D. P. Damon A reading of this instrument discloses that all the formal requirements of Miranda were met and it is not claimed otherwise; but defendant asserts he was misled and confused by Officer Dwyer's response to his inquiry concerning his right to a lawyer. Thus the issue before us concerns not the literal terms of the warnings given and the waiver signed but rather whether these were robbed of their intended effect by the "conflicting" statements concerning how and when defendant could secure a lawyer.

We set out much of Officer Dwyer's testimony dealing with this matter:

A. ... When ... the rights were given to him, he asked that part about the attorney. And he wanted to know if he could get one without having to pay for one.

Q. ... And what did you tell him, Officer?

A. I said that's up to the Court to decide on a court appointed attorney.

Q. And it goes without saying there wasn't a court present; was there?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell him that he had a right to have an attorney if he was unable to pay for one present at the time of questioning?

A. It was stated in the waiver form, that's exactly how it was read to him.

Q. Well, the waiver says that I have a right to speak or confer with an attorney prior to and during the interrogation by members of the Waterloo Police Department.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. But when he asked you whether he could have a lawyer without paying for him you told him that that would be up to a court; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at no time was he told that he could have a lawyer at state expense present during questioning?

A. He never questioned it.

Q. I'm not asking you that. Was he told that?

A. No.

Q. Now, to the best of your recollection, Officer, and I don't want to unduly pursue this point, but with respect to his question relating to whether he could obtain a lawyer without paying for one, what was his question to you?

A. His question was does that mean that he gets a lawyer without having to pay for one.

Q. Okay. And what was your response to him?

A. I said the Court decides who gets a Court appointed attorney. If you would qualify you'd get one.

Miranda warnings must be both timely and adequate before statements made during custodial interrogation, either inculpatory or exculpatory, are admissible. State v. Matlock, 289 N.W.2d 625, 627 (Iowa 1980); State v. Hansen, 286 N.W.2d 163, 168-69 (Iowa 1979); State v. Jump, 269 N.W.2d 417, 423 (Iowa 1978).

This principle is well stated in Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305, 308 (10th Cir. 1967) cert. den. 389 U.S. 992, 88 S.Ct. 489, 19 L.Ed.2d 484 (1967), as follows:

Surely Miranda is not a ritual of words to be recited by rote according to didactic niceties. What Miranda does require is meaningful advice to the unlettered and unlearned in language which he can comprehend and on which he can knowingly act. We will not indulge semantical debates between counsel over the particular words used to inform an individual of his rights. The crucial test is whether the words in the context used, considering the age, background and intelligence of the individual being interrogated, impart a clear, understandable warning of all of his rights.

The specific complaint here that defendant was confused and misled by conflicting instructions concerning representation by counsel has been the subject of a number of decisions elsewhere. They are not in complete accord, although apparent differences are usually explained by the finding in the particular case that the information given either was, or was not, confusing, contradictory, or ambiguous.

Failure to warn defendant that he had a right to immediate appointment of counsel at the time of interrogation was held not violative of his constitutional rights in United States ex rel. Placek v. Illinois, 546 F.2d 1298, 1300 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Lamia, 429 F.2d 373, 376-77 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 907, 91 S.Ct. 150, 27 L.Ed.2d 146; People v. Johnson, 90 Mich.App. 415, 282 N.W.2d 340, 342 (1979).

United States v. Twomey, 467 F.2d 1248, 1250 (7th Cir. 1972), relied on by defendant is a seventh circuit case as is Placek. Although they reach opposite results, Placek distinguishes the two by pointing out the warnings in Twomey were internally confusing and contradictory. Those in Placek were not. See also United States v. Garcia, 431 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1970) and Perez v. People, 176 Colo. 505, 491 P.2d 969, 970 (1971).

Thus each case must be resolved on its own total circumstances in deciding if a defendant's rights were violated. The ultimate question is: Did defendant receive a clear and understandable warning of his rights and was his waiver a truly voluntary one?

As pointed out in Coyote, 380 F.2d at 308, it is "always open to an accused to subjectively deny that he understood the precautionary warning and advice with respect to the assistance of counsel." However, we should reject such protestations when the surrounding circumstances clearly demonstrate that cannot be true. We believe this is such a case.

Defendant was told he could have an attorney both before and during interrogation. The fact that the court would appoint counsel upon proper showing in no way derogated his rights as explained to him. He had already been advised he need not talk to the officers at all. He had a ready and available remedy: silence. And it was one he understood, for he later terminated the interrogation by asking for an attorney. Certainly he was as knowledgeable of his rights before questioning as he was during it.

The language used in the warnings given defendant was clear and non-technical. He did not take advantage of them. His waiver was unequivocal. We can find nothing to support the claim defendant did not fully understand what he could do or what he did do. He cannot now recant by claiming he was imposed upon.

In reaching this conclusion we have...