State v. Cowell, 12564
| Decision Date | 13 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12564,12564 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James COWELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Michael V. Black, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and respondent; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
L. Anthony Weisensee, John N. Gridley, III, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
The defendant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction on a charge of murder. We affirm.
On August 8, 1977, the defendant shot and killed James Clark and then forced two other men to help him dispose of the body. On September 15, 1977, Agents Donald Gromer and Jerry Baum from the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation interviewed the defendant at the Woodbury County, Iowa, jail where the defendant was being held on an unrelated offense. The defendant had not then been charged with the murder of James Clark. The defendant was given his Miranda rights prior to the interview, whereupon he stated "he had nothing to hide" and then talked to Agent Gromer. During the first portion of the interview, the defendant responded to Agent Gromer's inquiries about James Clark with questions couched in Biblical passages. Agent Gromer traded Biblical quotations with the defendant for twenty to thirty minutes, and then brought the conversation back to the disappearance of Clark, whereupon defendant made incriminating statements. During this interview (which continued for approximately ninety minutes), the defendant appeared alert, well-rested, and coherent. He did not give any indication of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol and seemed to understand Agent Gromer's questions. That also appeared to be the condition of the defendant when he was questioned a second time on October 3, 1977. Again the Miranda rights were fully explained and the defendant indicated a willingness to talk to Agent Gromer and another detective. At the beginning of the October 3 meeting, there was some conversation regarding the Bible between the defendant and Agent Gromer, but on this occasion no Biblical passages were recited. The defendant thereafter made additional incriminating statements.
The basic issue before us is whether the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article VI, Section 9, of the South Dakota Constitution before making incriminating statements during the two interviews. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). It is the position of defendant that the admissions made by him during the two custodial interviews were involuntary because Agent Gromer indulged in "Scriptural" subterfuge to overcome his cryptic "Scriptural" refusal to waive his right to remain silent. It is claimed that psychological pressures thus brought to bear on the accused resulted in his incriminating statements. The State maintains that the findings and conclusions adopted by the trial judge that the defendant voluntarily waived his privilege against self-incrimination were sustained by the evidence adduced at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress.
The religious aspects became apparent when the defendant was asked if he wanted a lawyer (although the right to counsel is not in question here). His response was that he was represented by "God The Father In Heaven." When Agent Gromer would ask a question about the disappearance of Clark, the defendant often countered with Biblical passages or religious beliefs. He contends that this was his method of indicating he did not want to talk about Clark's disappearance and that Agent Gromer would then overcome that reluctance by showing him Biblically that he should cooperate with government authorities. The issue, therefore, devolves upon whether the Scriptural sparring led to involuntary incriminating statements. At the suppression hearing, Agent Gromer testified concerning the September 15, 1977, interview:
The testimony continued:
Concerning the October 3, 1977, interview, Agent Gromer further testified:
In making the determination with respect to whether there was a voluntary waiver on the part of the defendant, the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation are inquired into. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979). That decision must be made by the trial judge in the first instance. State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jenner
...by Justice Wollman, joined by Justices Morgan and Henderson, with Justices Fosheim and Dunn concurring in result). State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1980) (a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Fosheim, joined by then Chief Justice Wollman and Justices Dunn, Morgan and State v. DuBois,......
-
State v. Erickson
...we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. State v. Headrick, 357 N.W.2d 268, 270 (S.D.1984); State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322, 325 (S.D.1980). The trial court, over defense counsel's objection, allowed statements made by Erickson to the police to be admitted into e......
-
State v. Neville
...surrounding the interrogation must be examined. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979); State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1980). Custodial statements made by an intoxicated defendant are not per se involuntary, but rather this is one of the circumstances t......
-
State v. Janis, 14070
...the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. See, e.g., State v. Caffrey, 332 N.W.2d 269 (S.D.1983); State v. Cowell, 288 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1980). A statement is voluntary if it is the product of a defendant's free and rational choice. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S......