State v. Carpenter, 36541
| Decision Date | 16 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 36541,36541 |
| Citation | 63 Wn.2d 577,388 P.2d 537 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Charles C. CARPENTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Palmer & McDonald, W. D. Palmer, Sr., Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Seattle, Robert Corning, Deputy Pros. Atty., for respondent.
Appellant was convicted on a charge of taking and driving away a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner and with voluntarily riding therein, with the knowledge that the vehicle had been so taken, in violation of RCW 9.54.020.
The case is before us on his appeal from a judgment and sentence entered on his conviction. The state and appellant have executed an agreed statement of facts.
His contention is that he was illegally arrested in Tacoma by two policemen while he and a companion were seated in a parked car on a public street. They were taken in a police car to the police station and booked in the usual manner. On the following day, appellant was taken from the Tacoma city jail by two detectives of the Seattle Police Department and lodged in Seattle city jail. There the detectives obtained a statement from him which was reduced to writing by one of them and was then read and signed by appellant.
A pretrial hearing was held by the trial court pursuant to Rule of Pleading, Practice and Procedure 101.20W (RCW Vol. O) to determine whether this statement was voluntarily made by appellant. After hearing the evidence presented on this issue, the court ruled that it was a voluntary statement and was admissible in evidence. Appellant's motion to suppress it was denied.
The court further found that appellant was arrested illegally due to the fact that the Tacoma police officers, at the time they made the arrest, did not have reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed.
Appellant's statement to the Seattle detectives (Exhibit 1) was admitted in evidence over his objection. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found appellant guilty of taking and of riding in a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner.
Appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that his statement to the Seattle detectives had been illegally obtained while he was in custody as a result of his illegal arrest. His motion for a new trial was denied.
Appellant was sentenced to serve a maximum term of not more than ten years in the state penitentiary. He has appealed in forma pauperis from this judgment and sentence.
Appellant's two assignments of error are (1) the admission in evidence of his statement (Exhibit 1), over his objection, and (2) the denial of his motion for a new trial.
The sole question presented for decision is whether, since appellant had been found by the trial court to have been illegally arrested, his voluntary statement to the Seattle detectives (Exhibit 1) made while he was under arrest could be properly admitted in evidence against him.
Appellant contends that, under Art. 1, § 7 of our state constitution (as implemented by RCW 10.79.040), no evidence (either physical evidence or oral statements of the accused) may be admitted when obtained by illegal means. He relies principally on Tacoma v. Houston, 27 Wash.2d 215, 177 P.2d 886 (1947), in which this court held that the testimony of certain witnesses who obtained information as the result of their making an illegal search and seizure of a private dwelling was not admissible in evidence.
We think that our decision in State v. Keating, 61 Wash.2d 452, 378 P.2d 703 (1963), which was rendered subsequent to the trial of the case at bar, is conclusive of the sole question stated above. In the Keating case, the defendant was arrested just outside his home and was taken to police headquarters for questioning. He then made certain admissions (which were tape recorded) and a confession. At a pretrial hearing, the court found that the admissions and confession were voluntary. At the trial, the same contention was advanced as was made by appellant in this case, to wit, that, since his arrest was unlawful, his confession was inadmissible. At page 454 of 61 Was h.2d, page 704 of 378 P.2d, this court disposed of this contention adversely to the defendant saying:
'Assuming, arguendo, defendant's arrest to be without probable cause, the basic question presented is whether, under the circumstances here revealed, a voluntary confession with accompanying admissions becomes, by virtue of the unlawful arrest, inadmissible in evidence at a subsequent trial.
'Defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Byers, 43491
...extent Wong Sun v. United States, supra, is inconsistent with the earlier decisions in this jurisdiction, namely, State v. Carpenter, 63 Wash.2d 577, 388 P.2d 537 (1964), and State v. Keating, 61 Wash.2d 452, 378 P.2d 703 (1963), these decisions are no longer correct statements of the HAMIL......
-
State v. Groom, 63951-5
...P.2d 480 (1952), overruled on other grounds in State v. Ringer, 100 Wash.2d 686, 674 P.2d 1240 (1983); see also State v. Carpenter, 63 Wash.2d 577, 579, 388 P.2d 537 (1964); State v. Sanders, 8 Wash.App. 306, 309, 506 P.2d 892 (1973); State v. Duarte, 4 Wash.App. 825, 833, 484 P.2d 1156 (19......
-
State v. Byers
...plate light, though both the dispatcher and Mr. Ellis said that no such information had been conveyed to him.4 In State v. Carpenter, 63 Wash.2d 577, 388 P.2d 537 (1964) and State v. Keating, 61 Wash.2d 452, 378 P.2d 703 (1963), this court upheld convictions based on confessions which immed......
-
State v. Moore, 1671--III
...P.2d 193, cert. den. 370 U.S. 929, 82 S.Ct. 1569, 8 L.Ed.2d 508; State v. Keating, 61 Wash.2d 452, 378 P.2d 703; State v. Carpenter, 63 Wash.Dec.2d 577, 581, 388 P.2d 537. It may well be that future developments, or a conviction that law enforcement agencies of the state are persistently in......