State v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 06 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45447,45447 |
| Citation | 204 Kan. 234,461 P.2d 735 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. William Earl BOWMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When an accused refuses to talk without the advice of an attorney, an investigating officer cannot, by forcing him to attend a custodial interrogation of his alleged accomplices, use his failure to deny incriminating statements of one of the alleged accomplices as evidence of his guilt.
Carl N. Kelly, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Richard K. Hollingsworth, Deputy County Atty., argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen., Keith Sanborn, County Atty., and Donald Foster, Deputy County Atty., were with him on the brief for appellee.
HATCHER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a conviction on numerous felony charges.
The facts may be briefly narrated.
In the first part of August, 1967, the appellant, William Bowman, met with George Mott and Ronald Braswell in a park in Denver, Colorado. They discussed making some quick, fast money and decided to come to Wichita, Kansas in George Mott's atomobile. After arriving in Wichita, Braswell found two local people, Ricky Ringo and william Brunette, to assist them. They all took up residence at the Tower Motel on Tuesday, August 15, 1967. On Friday, August 18, 1967, after having looked over the town, Braswell went to the W. W. Grinder Co. on the pretence of inquiring about a job, but in actuality he was looking the building over for burglar alarms and easy access. At approximately 8:30 P.M. of the same day, Mott, Bowman and Braswell left the Tower Motel and drove to the W. W. Grinder Company. Bowman and Braswell broke into the building and stole several checks, a check protector and a notary seal while Mott waited in the car. They returned to the motel and the five of them began making out checks.
The next morning Mott and Bowman took Brunette to a grocery store to cash one of the checks. The clerk became suspicious and called the police who apprehended Brunette at the store. Brunette gave a description of Mott's car which had left him abandoned and Mott and Bowman were apprehended a few minutes later. Ringo and Braswell were also apprehended. They were all taken to the police station and interviewed individually. Ringo, Brunette and Braswell admitted their participation, but Mott and Bowman remained silent.
Bowman was charged with and found guilty of second degree burglary, larceny, second degree forgery and attempted uttering. He was sentenced under the Habitual Criminal Act.
The defendant has appealed. Although the appeal is challenged because there was a few days delay in filing, we feel it is for the best interest of all parties that the constitutional questions be determined at the earliest opportunity and, therefore, pass the procedural question.
The appellant contends that his constitutional rights were violated by admitting in evidence the testimony of a police officer to the effect that the appellant remained silent while being confronted with the incriminating statements of an alleged accomplice.
The facts surrounding this alleged error are not in dispute.
At the time of his arrest, the appellant informed the arresting police officers 'that he wasn't talking without an attorney.' However, after the appellant and his alleged accomplices were taken to the police station, a police detective brought all five of them together and questioned them in an attempt to establish a sequence of events. The detective was permitted to testify that at this custodial inquisition the appellant made no comment when confronted with the incriminating statements of one of the alleged accomplices. The alleged accomplice testified for the state when the case came to trial.
We are forced to conclude that the admission of the detective's testimony was error. Under the above facts a statement made by the appellant would not have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jerskey v. State
...Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, f.n. 437 (sic), 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974; and our own holding in State v. Bowman, 204 Kan. 234, 461 P.2d 735; and State v. Dearman, 198 Kan. 44, 422 P.2d 573, Cf. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106; Chap......
-
State v. Bly
...State v. Nirschl, 208 Kan. 111, 490 P.2d 917. The defendant relies upon State v. Dearman, 198 Kan. 44, 422 P.2d 573, and State v. Bowman, 204 Kan. 234, 461 P.2d 735, where we held in substance that where the defendant does not take the witness stand it is reversible error for the state to b......
-
State v. Peterson, 53922
...an inference of guilty may not be drawn from a failure to speak or to explain when a person has been arrested."' State v. Bowman, 204 Kan. 234, 235--236, 461 P.2d 735, 736, related to admissibility of a detective's testimony that at the custodial inquisition defendant made no comment when c......
-
State v. Macon
...U.S. 913, 82 S.Ct. 1260, 8 L.Ed.2d 406 (1962); People v. Hansard, 245 Cal.App.2d 691, 53 Cal.Rptr. 918, 922 (1966); State v. Bowman, 204 Kan. 234, 461 P.2d 735 (Sup.Ct.1969). We are satisfied a jury would not think a man reveals a feeling of guilt by telephoning his lawyer in the face of an......