State v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 09 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 52589,52589
• Citation: 158 N.W.2d 134,261 Iowa 1377
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. George (N.) HYDE, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 134

158 N.W.2d 134

261 Iowa 1377

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. George (N.) HYDE, Appellant.

No. 52589.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1968.

Gene L. Needles, Des Moines, for appellant.

Richard Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Raymond A. Fenton, Des Moines, County Atty., for appellee.

BECKER, Justice.

Defendant was indicted for assault with intent to commit rape, tried before a jury and convicted. Upon appeal he assigns five errors. We affirm.

The State's principal witness was Marilyn Lindholm, a public health nurse, who had been helping a Mrs. Harris. Defendant had been living at Mrs. Harris' home. On December 2, 1966, he called Miss Lindholm, and told her that Mrs. Harris had returned to the hospital leaving a gift of $10 for her. The nurse said she couldn't accept the money but would call him back.

Later in the day when the nurse was in the vicinity of the Harris residence, she stopped and knocked for some time before defendant answered the door. While she was explaining that she couldn't accept the gift defendant pulled her into the house. Defendant had a knife which Miss Lindholm grabbed. She was wearing gloves and was not cut by the knife.

Miss Lindholm described her struggles with defendant which included defendant trying to force her down on the bed, striking her on the face, stroking her on the face, touching her legs and saying 'I just want--something.' During this melee Miss Lindholm tried to talk to defendant. When she said her face hurt and she wanted ice, defendant got up and went to the kitchen. She kept talking. The phone rang and defendant answered it. Miss Lindholm tried to get out the door but defendant stopped her. She still kept talking and the phone rang again. This time she picked it up and said: 'Hello, Get the police.' When defendant took the phone Miss Lindholm ran out of the house. A motorist nearby took her to the police station. She reported the incident to the police and was taken to the hospital. Examination revealed a dislocated shoulder, facial cuts and bruises and a cut on the left corner of her mouth that required three stitches. During the time they were on the floor and on the bed defendant was on top of her, but, as she said 'He never got me completely down.'

Miss Lindholm was corroborated by the doctor and by Mr. Zeller, the person who made the two phone calls. He had called back because defendant was so abrupt. The second time he heard screaming and scuffling in the background and the woman's plea that he call the police. He did so.

The police responded to the call and found defendant alone. Defendant told them there was no trouble and allowed them to look around. They returned a short time later and arrested him.

Defendant took the stand. He agreed that he called Mrs. Harris' nurse to give her something because she had been good to Mrs. Harris. He was down in the basement scraping paint with a putty knife when she came to the door. He still had the putty knife in his hand when he answered the door. Defendant stated the nurse came into the house of her own accord. They got into an argument about whether Mrs. Harris should be in a nursing home. Miss Lindholm raised her purse and he didn't know if she was going to hit him. He raised his arm and accidently struck her and she started to scream. He took her arm and told her he wasn't going to hurt her. She backed over to the bed and sat down. She saw the putty knife and reached for it. He took it out of her hand and laid it on the table. She asked for ice and they went into the kitchen. The phone rang, he answered it and told the insurance man to come back tomorrow. It rang again and she asked who it was. He told her it was the insurance man. She asked to talk to him and then asked for the police. He denied intent to hit the woman, said he hit her only once and that time accidently. He denied intending to hurt her or rape her.

Defendant was taken to the police station and questioned by officers James Thompson and Forrest Speck. He filed a motion to suppress evidence of statements made to the officers alleging that although the officers state defendant was informed of his constitutional rights he was unable to make an intelligent and effectual waiver of his rights because he had only a fourth grade education, could not read well enough to understand a newspaper or the minutes of the indictment, and he was not advised of his constitutional rights until his appearance before the court after the elicitation of the admissions referred to in the minutes of evidence.

At the hearing on the motion defendant testified first. He said Officer Thompson got him out of jail and asked him why he hit the nurse. Another officer was present. Neither told him of his right to an attorney or that what he said would be held against him. He did not understand about self-incrimination and as to an attorney the judge appoints one for you if you don't have the money to hire one. The judge first told him of his right to an attorney. He denied telling the detectives he did not want a lawyer.

Detective Thompson testified to taking Mr. Hyde from his cell to an ante room. He told Mr. Hyde he had a right to an attorney, he didn't have to tell them anything about the incident if he didn't want to, he was told if he didn't have the money for an attorney the court would get him one. The officer said defendant was given these warnings several times as he told different stories. Each time defendant said he would just as well tell them about it.

Detective Speck testified to substantially similar facts at the hearing on motion to suppress. He said the entire questioning of Mr. Hyde took about 45 minutes.

The ruling on the motion to dismiss was oral. It concluded: 'While the accused has indicated his educational background is limited, at the same time he does indicate an understanding of his right to counsel.

'Now, the Court is aware of the fact that the burden is upon the State to furnish the basis for the waiver of any constitutional right against self-incrimination, but the Court feels in considering all the facts as disclosed here by testimony that the State has met the burden in this instance and that there is sufficient evidence of the giving of the warnings and explanation of the rights and waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination so that the evidence as to statements made by the accused at the time referred to by the officers, would be admissible Insofar as the grounds thus far urged to suppress the same are concerned.' (emphasis supplied)

At trial before a different judge the officers testified (over objection) to information elicited from defendant. The objections went to the same points and were overruled with similar comments by the trial judge.

The officers said defendant told several stories. They told him they didn't believe his stories because they had other facts from their investigation. He then told substantially the same facts related by Miss Lindholm and said he intended to rape her. At the time of interrogation the officers had not talked to Miss Lindholm.

I. Defendant contends the confession was not shown to be voluntary. The sole circumstance put forward to support the argument is the officers' rejection of defendant's first story and their statement to him that it did not square with their knowledge from independent investigation. Defendant reasons that since the officers had not talked personally to the complaining witness they misled defendant by such a statement. The officers did not say what their investigation showed. Nor did they indicate the source of any other information they might have had. Such information could, of course, have come from other members of the police force. There is no showing the officers made false statements and defendant does not claim they did. Nor does he claim coercion by physical abuse, long continued interrogation or trickery. This case does not fairly fall within any of the procedures adversely noted in Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

State v. Clough, Iowa, 147 N.W.2d 847, 850, 'Before admissions or confessions may be admitted in evidence as voluntary, pursuant to custodial interrogation, we have said it must appear the interrogation was free from coercion or mistreatment of the defendant, that the statements were given without threats or promises. State v. Mullin, 249 Iowa 10, 14, 85 N.W.2d 598, and citations.' The record fairly complies with that standard.

The evidence of defendant as well as that of the State indicates an acceptable interrogation after defendant was warned of his rights. There is little or no evidence to support the charge that the statements were in fact involuntary.

II. Defendant's next point is that while the court ruled that the Miranda warnings had been given, it did not rule on the voluntariness of the statements. He urges this failure as reversible error on the grounds that a finding of voluntariness is essential under Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, and State v. Leiss, 258 Iowa 787, 140 N.W.2d 172.

The State asserts a finding of voluntariness is not required where the question is not raised. Voluntariness was the only issue generally recognized at the time Jackson v. Denno was decided. (Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 was decided the same day as Jackson v. Denno, and Miranda came much later). It argues a defendant may now challenge a confession either on the grounds of voluntariness, or because of violation of the right to counsel (Escobedo) or for failure to give the now famous forewarnings (Miranda). But a defendant is not entitled to rulings on these matters unless he raises them. Defendant did not raise the question of voluntariness and ordinarily cannot complain at this stage of the case. State v. Slater, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 702.

Neither the motion to suppress evidence nor the...