State v. Geldart
| Decision Date | 30 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 6096,6096 |
| Citation | 111 N.H. 219,279 A.2d 588 |
| Parties | STATE v. William A. GELDART, Jr. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Henry F. Spaloss, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
William P. Shea, Dover, for defendant.
The question presented in this case is whether an oral confession made after Miranda warnings at the scene of a burglary within minutes after arrest and subsequently reduced to writing within two or three hours was a voluntary confession as found by the trial court. The defendant was indicted for aiding and abetting in the commission of a burglary. At a pretrial hearing, at which the defendant did not testify, the Court (King, J.) found the confessions to be voluntary and reserved and transferred the defendant's exceptions thereto.
About eleven o'clock in the evening law enforcement officers were called to a residence at which a burglary was in progress. According to the testimony at the pretrial hearing they saw someone run behind a large propane tank outside the residence and discovered the defendant hiding himself there. He was handcuffed and placed in a police cruiser. The arresting officer fully advised him of his rights in accordance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but did not question him at that time. Shortly thereafter, a second officer arrived and sat in the back seat with the defendant. After the defendant complained that the handcuffs hurt him because 'he had a burn or something on his hand,' the officer had them removed. The officer then asked him who else participated in the burglary. That officer told the defendant that he ought to make it easy on himself and tell who was with him and that if he cooperated things would probably go better for him. 'Within a minute or two' defendant stated the names of his brothers, who participated with him in the burglary, and confessed his part therein.
The defendant was taken to the county jail where within two or three hours after his arrest he signed a written confession of his part in the burglary. The written confession was preceded by the following statement in part: The confession also stated that * * *'
There is uncontradicted testimony that none of the police officers made any promises or threats to the defendant or offered any inducement that they would drop the prosecution. The court specifically determined that 'There was no atmosphere here of pressure, of force or power or overreaching that would under the Miranda case result in ruling out this confession.' In ruling that the confession was voluntary the court stated that the defendant did not confess because of the statements made by the officers and that the time-lapse between the oral confession and the signing of the written confession in any case would have dissipated any improper inducement that might have been suggested at the time the defendant made his oral confession.
In cases in which it is alleged that proper warnings were not given the defendant, or where it is alleged that the suspect was given an improper inducement which rendered his confession involuntary, it is proper for the trial court to determine the questions of fact and to rule on the voluntariness of the confession. State v. Santos, 107 N.H. 490, 493-494, 225 A.2d 617, 619 (1967); State v. Reed, 106 N.H. 140, 141-145, 207 A.2d 443, 444-447 (1965). In the present case it is conceded by all that the defendant received complete Miranda warnings of his rights. In that situation if he chose to make a statement he could do so providing it was a voluntary one and a waiver of his rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laaman
...find and rule on the evidence that defendant's statement was voluntary and a waiver of his Miranda rights. State v. Geldart, 111 N.H. 219, 220, 279 A.2d 588, 589 (1971); People v. Johnson, 55 Ill.2d 62, 70-71, 302 N.E.2d 20, 25 (1973); Mitchell v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 209, 434 F.......
-
State v. Reynolds
...in the presence of some police conduct that could be deemed to have induced the defendant's statement. See State v. Geldart, 111 N.H. 219, 221, 279 A.2d 588, 590 (1971). Previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court "yield no talismanic definition of 'voluntariness,' mechanically ap......
-
State v. Sullivan, 86-442
...to the manifest weight of the evidence.' " State v. Copeland, 124 N.H. 90, 92, 467 A.2d 238, 240 (1983) (quoting State v. Geldart, 111 N.H. 219, 221, 279 A.2d 588, 590 (1971)). There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant un......
-
State v. Elbert, s. 82-389
...370 A.2d 1153 (1977) (police officer had agreed to speak to judge in support of release on personal recognizance); State v. Geldart, 111 N.H. 219, 279 A.2d 588 (1971) (police said "things would probably go better" for the defendant if he cooperated). The previous discussion of the record in......