State v. Dailey

• Decision Date: 08 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-1174,89-1174
• Citation: 53 Ohio St.3d 88,559 N.E.2d 459
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. DAILEY, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 88

53 Ohio St.3d 88

559 N.E.2d 459

The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. DAILEY, Appellee.

No. 89-1174.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted May 15, 1990.

Decided Aug. 8, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

1. There is no rigid rule requiring that the content of the Miranda warnings given to an accused prior to police interrogations be a virtual incantation of the precise language contained in the Miranda opinion.

2. A suspect's decision to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is made voluntarily absent evidence that his will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired because of coercive police conduct. (Colorado v. Spring [1987], 479 U.S. 564, 574, 107 S.Ct. 851, 857-58, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 followed.)

On September 16, 1988, Edward Dailey, defendant-appellee, age eighteen, was picked up for questioning from his place of work without an arrest warrant by the chief deputy of the Guernsey County Sheriff's Department. Accompanying the chief deputy was Roxanne Ruess of the Guernsey County Children Services Board. Once in the deputy's vehicle, the deputy told Dailey why he had been picked up. En route to the sheriff's department, the officer read Dailey his Miranda rights from a standard form used by the Guernsey County Sheriff's Department. The form stated as follows:

"Before you are asked any questions you must understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questioning. You have the same right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time. You also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer."

The chief deputy inquired of Dailey whether he understood his rights as read to him and Dailey indicated that he did. Dailey signed a waiver form to that effect by printing his name on the waiver form. When they arrived at the chief deputy's office, Dailey indicated that he would be more comfortable making a statement if Ruess left the room. She departed and Dailey made a statement to the chief deputy.

A Guernsey County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Dailey with gross sexual imposition, to which charge he pleaded not guilty. Dailey subsequently filed a motion to suppress his statement of September 16, 1988. At the suppression hearing the chief deputy testified that even though Dailey was not "the smartest boy * * * [he had] ever talked to * * * [he] felt * * * [Dailey] understood what * * * [they talked about], [and] understood his rights." The officer also indicated that after Dailey had made the statement, Dailey asked him "how much time he was going to have to spend in jail."

Expert testimony adduced at the suppression hearing indicated that Dailey "is functioning at the very border between mild mental retardation and normal intellectual functioning" and has a general I.Q. of 71; that "[h]is word identification was at the 1.8 grade level which is a little bit less then second grade level"; and that "[h]is reading comprehension was documented at below the third grade level."

The trial court granted Dailey's motion to suppress finding that his statement of September 16, 1988 was not made voluntarily. The court indicated that it "can not find that the State has met its 'heavy burden' of showing that the four elements of the Miranda warnings were [met]" by the statement read to Dailey. It found the warning to be defective. The trial court also determined that Dailey's age, I.Q., and the custodial nature of the interrogation outweigh "the heavy burden the State must show in determining voluntariness."

The court of appeals affirmed. The court agreed with the trial court that the challenged words, "[y]ou have the same right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one," do not adequately convey that an indigent has a right to an appointed counsel. The court also held that the trial court's determination that Dailey's statement was not voluntarily made "is squarely within the unreviewable power[s] of the trier of fact."

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.

C. Keith Plummer, Pros. Atty., for appellant.

Gerald L. Jones, Cambridge, for appellee.

MOYER, Chief Justice.

The first question presented for our consideration is whether the warnings given to the defendant by the Guernsey County Chief Deputy Sheriff comply with the requirement of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

Defendant contends that Miranda requires an unequivocal statement to a suspect that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. In essence, defendant argues that the Miranda warning given him was inadequate because it failed to make reference to appointment of counsel.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit.

In Miranda, supra, the court indicated that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. The court indicated that in the absence of other effective measures the following procedures to safeguard the Fifth Amendment privilege must be observed:

"Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." Id.

The United States Supreme Court has often indicated that there is no rigid rule requiring that the content of the Miranda warnings given to an accused prior to police interrogations be a virtual incantation of the precise language contained in the Miranda opinion. See California v. Prysock (1981), 453 U.S. 355, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696; Duckworth v. Eagan (1989), 492 U.S. 195, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 2879, 106 L.Ed.2d 166, 176-177. The warnings required by Miranda are necessary in the absence of any other effective equivalent. Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 476, 86 S.Ct. at 1629; Prysock, supra, 453 U.S. at 359-360, 101 S.Ct. at 2809; Duckworth, supra, 492 U.S. at ----, 106 L.Ed.2d at 176-177, 109 S.Ct. at 2879. They are simply required to convey to a suspect his rights and are not themselves rights protected by the Constitution. Duckworth, supra, at ----, 109 S.Ct. at 2880, 106 L.Ed.2d at 177. They are measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination is protected. Id. Hence, a reviewing court need not examine the warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement. Id.

In State v. Edwards (1976), 49 Ohio St.2d 31, 37-41, 3 O.O.3d 18, 21-24, 358 N.E.2d 1051, 1057-1059, vacated in part (1978), 438 U.S. 911, 98 S.Ct. 3147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1155 we rejected the defendant's argument that the Miranda warnings given to him were inadequate because the police officer never explicitly asked him whether he wanted an attorney. As indicated in Moran v. Burbine (1986), 475 U.S. 412, 420, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1140, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 the warnings required by Miranda are satisfied where "prior to the initiation of questioning, * * * [the police] must fully apprise the suspect of the State's intention to use his statements to secure a conviction, and must inform him of his rights to remain silent and to 'have counsel present * * * if [he] so desires.' " In Duckworth, supra, 492 U.S. at ---- 109 S.Ct. at 2880, 106 L.Ed.2d at 177, the court approved, as touching all of the bases required by Miranda, warnings informing a suspect "that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in court, that he had the right to speak to an attorney before and during questioning, that he had 'this right to the advice and presence of a lawyer even if [he could] not afford to hire one,' and that he had the 'right to stop answering at any time until [he] talked to a lawyer.' "

Defendant does not claim that he failed to understand the warnings read to him. Instead he contends that the warnings are inadequate because they do not explicitly make reference to "appointment of counsel." The warnings read to the defendant clearly apprised him of the state's intention to use his statement to secure a conviction, informed him of his right not to answer questions and to have counsel present even if he could not afford to hire one. The warnings are no different from those approved by the court in Duckworth. We therefore conclude that the warnings given to the defendant were adequate.

We next determine whether defendant's statement, made after adequate Miranda warnings were given, was made voluntarily even in the absence of police coercion.

The trial court indicated that defendant's statement was not made voluntarily because he was eighteen years old, had an I.Q. of 71 and was subjected to in-custody interrogation.

In Miranda the court recognized that custodial interrogations by their very nature generate "compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely." Miranda, supra, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624; Moran, supra, 475 U.S. at 420, 106 S.Ct. at 1140. To combat this inherent compulsion and thereby protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Supreme Court has held that a suspect may effectively waive the rights conveyed in the Miranda warnings only if the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Miranda, ...