State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 07 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 124,124
• Citation: 240 S.E.2d 794,294 N.C. 320
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Ralph Polk HILL, Jr.

Page 794

240 S.E.2d 794

294 N.C. 320

STATE of North Carolina v. Ralph Polk HILL, Jr.

No. 124.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 7, 1978.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Roy A. Giles, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.

William J. Morgan, Jacksonville, for defendant-appellant.

MOORE, Justice.

Under his first assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's confession to having committed the assaults on Dorothy Speller and Shirley Freeman in Bertie County, and evidence of defendant's statement to Sheriff Daniels that he (defendant) had traveled from Jacksonville, North Carolina, via Route 24 through Swansboro, the locale of the murder for which defendant was tried in present case. Prior to trial counsel for defendant filed a motion to suppress any and all evidence of purported statements made by defendant. A pretrial hearing on said motion was held before Webb, J., at the 16 May 1977 Session of Onslow Superior Court. At the conclusion of the hearing Judge Webb found facts, entered conclusions of law, and ruled that the statements made by defendant were admissible into evidence.

On 19 May 1977, Judge Webb filed a supplementary order to his initial order, and therein made more extensive findings of fact. The judge found: that the defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights on three separate occasions on the morning of 27 July, and on all three occasions the defendant stated that he had not done anything and did not have anything to say to the officers; that upon being told that the two women were going to live the defendant stated that he wanted to go to the hospital and see the girls because he did not believe they were alive; that after having seen the girls and on leaving the hospital the defendant freely volunteered the statement that he was the man who had assaulted the women and that he was ready to make a statement; that Sheriff Daniels reminded defendant of his rights a fourth time and defendant stated that he did not want a lawyer present; that defendant was taken back to the Bertie County jail for interrogation by Agent Godley; that, while waiting for the agent, Sheriff Daniels and defendant engaged in casual conversation not connected with the Bertie County case, and that at this time, in response to the sheriff's question, defendant told the sheriff that he had traveled to Windsor that morning on Highway 24 through Swansboro; that Sheriff Daniels knew nothing of the murder of Herman Rofe in Swansboro at the time he asked defendant this question; that defendant was advised of his rights a fifth time by Agent Godley, and that defendant voluntarily waived them and stated he wished to make a statement without a lawyer; that defendant was later advised of his rights a sixth time by Deputy Cherry, and that he voluntarily waived these rights and confessed to the Bertie County crime to Deputy Cherry.

These findings of fact by the trial court are conclusive on appeal in that they are supported by competent evidence in the record. State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 214 S.E.2d 742 (1975); State v. Haskins, 278 N.C. 52, 178 S.E.2d 610 (1971). Based on these facts, the judge correctly ruled that defendant's constitutional rights were not violated; "that he freely, understandingly, and voluntarily waived these rights and that the statement made by the defendant to Sheriff Daniels between 11:00 a. m. and 12:00 noon regarding coming through Swansboro; that the statement made to S.B.I. Agent Godley and Sheriff Daniels at approximately 1:00 p. m., and that the statement made to Deputy Sheriff Cherry at approximately 3:00 p. m. are admissible in evidence at the defendant's trial."

Defendant argues, however, that his statements to officers should have been suppressed and bases this contention on the fact that on the morning of his arrest, between 7:30 a. m. and 9:00 a. m., he was advised of his rights on three separate occasions by three different officers, and on each occasion he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Defendant contends that his right to silence was infringed upon when he was taken to the hospital and forced to confront Ms. Freeman and Ms. Speller, that this amounts to "subtle compulsion," and that any and all subsequent statements made by him, and especially his alleged statement concerning his trip through Swansboro, were involuntarily made and in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Defendant argues that Miranda requires that once an accused has indicated his desire to remain silent, not only must officers cease the immediate interrogation, but also officers cannot approach defendant at some later time, as in the present case, and begin anew their interrogation.

Our Court, in State v. Riddick, 291 N.C. 399, 230 S.E.2d 506, 514 (1976), stated:

" . . . The Miranda rule that in-custody interrogation of a defendant must cease when the defendant indicates he wishes to remain silent, or wishes to consult counsel, or both, does not bar a subsequent statement by a defendant who, after having been fully advised of his constitutional rights, freely and voluntarily waives his right to remain silent and his right to counsel and invites the officer to resume talks with him. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975); State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 88, 178 S.E.2d 820 (1971); State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E.2d 511 (1968)."

Such an interpretation of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, was approved by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 96 S.Ct. 321, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975). There the Court held that the Miranda requirement, that police interrogation must cease when the person in custody indicates that he wishes to remain silent, does not create a per se proscription of indefinite duration upon any further questioning by any police officer at any time or place on any subject; nor does it impose a blanket prohibition against the taking or the admission in evidence of voluntary statements; nor, on the other hand, does it permit a resumption of interrogation after a momentary cessation. Instead, " . . . the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether his 'right to cut off questioning' was 'scrupulously honored.' "

In present case, defendant's own evidence does not support his contention that officers continued to interrogate him after he exercised his right to remain silent. On the three occasions between 7:30 a. m. and 9:00 a. m. his "right to cut off questioning" was "scrupulously honored" in that, once he expressed his wish to remain silent, he was asked no further questions by the officers who had asked whether he wanted to make a statement. In fact, it was not until four hours later, after defendant had been identified by the victims of his assault, that defendant volunteered his confession to that crime, and was once again read his rights before interrogation resumed. And, the fact that defendant volunteered a confession to this offense only after having confronted the victims of that crime in the hospital does not amount to a "subtle compulsion" of the defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights, for the trial court found that defendant requested to go to the hospital to see the victims of that crime after having expressed disbelief that they were still alive.

As for defendant's incriminating statement to Sheriff Daniels that he had traveled to Windsor via Route 24 through Swansboro, this statement was not made during an "interrogation" under Miranda, but rather was made during the course of a casual conversation between the sheriff and defendant while awaiting the arrival of the S.B.I. agent who was to interrogate defendant regarding the Bertie County offense. At the time defendant made this statement, neither Sheriff Daniels nor anyone else suspected defendant of the murder of Herman Rofe. And even if, for the sake of argument, we do consider Sheriff Daniels' conversation with defendant to be an "in-custody interrogation," such an admission is still admissible. The record clearly shows that the defendant was re-advised of his Miranda rights, and that he waived these rights just prior to his conversation with Sheriff Daniels. Although this was a waiver of rights concerning interrogation for the Bertie County crime, defendant was advised that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law.

Therefore, we hold that the lower court did not err in ruling that defendant's confession to the Bertie County offense, and his admission to having traveled through Swansboro on his way to Bertie County, were admissible into evidence.

Under this same assignment of error defendant argues a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At the hearing of the motion to suppress, defendant stated that he twice asked for a lawyer on the morning of 27 July. The State's evidence was, however, to the contrary. Based on this evidence the trial court found that, on being asked whether he wished to make a statement on the morning of 27 July, defendant had simply stated that he had not done anything and did not have anything to say. The court further found that the defendant expressly waived his right to counsel on the afternoon of 27 July, when he finally chose to make a statement. There being competent evidence in the record to support the judge's findings of fact and rulings of waiver and admissibility, such findings and rulings are conclusive on appeal. State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 88, 178 S.E.2d 820 (1971); State v. Bishop, 272 N.C. 283, 158 S.E.2d 511 (1968).

Even if we assume that the defendant did request counsel when first advised of his rights, this does not make his subsequent statements inadmissible since the defendant initiated the subsequent conversation with officers himself, was once...