State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 03 March 1978
• Docket Number: No. 75-220-A,75-220-A
• Citation: 119 R.I. 749,383 A.2d 1012
• Parties: STATE v. Bruce L. JOHNSON. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 1012

383 A.2d 1012

119 R.I. 749

STATE v. Bruce L. JOHNSON.

No. 75-220-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 3, 1978.

Julius C. Michaelson, Atty. Gen., Nancy Marks Rahmes, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Cappuccio & Cappuccio, Frank S. Cappuccio, Westerly, for defendant.

OPINION

JOSLIN, Justice.

The defendant, Bruce L. Johnson, was tried and convicted before a jury in the Superior Court on indictments charging him with murder, kidnapping and assault and battery with intent to commit rape. The victim was a 14-year-old girl. On appeal, the errors assigned relate to the denial of certain pretrial motions and to allegedly erroneous rulings at the trial.

On October 16, 1973 at about 7:30 in the evening four boys, while walking along Shore Road in Westerly, noticed a large automobile drive slowly by them, turn around and then turn into the driveway of a vacant residence. The boys continued walking along Shore Road heading toward the home of one of them and, when about 100 feet beyond the driveway, they turned back and saw a tall, slender man with his hair combed back, wearing a black and white plaid jacket. They believed him to be about 35 years old. As they neared their destination, which was about one-tenth of a mile from the driveway, they heard cries or screams coming from the vicinity of the vacant residence. They then saw the motor vehicle, now containing a passenger, leave the driveway and proceed along Shore Road at 40 or 50 miles an hour. What they had seen prompted their return to the driveway where they found girl's gym clothes and school books. The books contained the name of the victim. They reported the incident to the police and, when a police officer arrived on the scene to investigate their report, the boys gave the gym clothes and books to him.

When police inquiries at the victim's home disclosed that she was missing, a search was instituted. On the following day, October 17, her body, together with various articles of clothing and a pink cloth, were found in a Westerly gravel pit.

The police then began an intensive 5-days' investigation. On the 18th and 19th, one of the boys who had been walking along Shore Road accompanied Westerly police in a search for the suspicious automobile. He identified a vehicle in the driveway of defendant's home as similar to the one previously seen on Shore Road. The next day, a state police officer, who was also searching for the vehicle described by the boys, sighted the same automobile in the same driveway. He stopped to investigate and in the course of a 15-minute questioning of defendant's family learned that defendant, who was not expected home for a few hours, was the owner of the vehicle. Rather than await his return, the officer left the house after telling the family that he wished to talk with defendant about any activity he might have observed on the evening of the murder. As the officer returned to his police cruiser, he noticed that one of the rear tires of the automobile in the driveway resembled a tire imprint found near the victim's body.

That evening, October 20, the officer telephoned defendant and requested him to come to the police station for questioning regarding his activities on the day of the homicide. The defendant complied with the request and, in the presence of his father who had accompanied him to the station house, was questioned briefly and then released.

Because both defendant, except for his age, and his automobile matched the general description given by the boys, and also because he had appeared to be nervous during the questioning, suspicion began to focus on him. This suspicion grew the next day when defendant's mother and sister identified the pink cloth found near the victim's body as coming from an old nightgown that defendant had used to wax his automobile, and on the 22nd the officers in charge of the investigation ordered him brought to the station. That evening, the Johnson family automobile was stopped by the Westerly police, and defendant's father, the driver, was directed to follow the police cruiser to the station. Upon arrival, defendant was immediately ushered into the chief's office, placed under arrest and, prior to being questioned, advised of his rights as mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). No threats or promises were made to defendant At the trial defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury's verdict was that defendant was both guilty and sane.

and he signed a form waiving his Miranda rights and agreed to answer questions. The police fixed the time of arrest at about 8 p. m. While defendant fixed the time as approximately 7 p. m. The defendant confessed at about 8:20 p. m. He was then asked to reduce his statement to writing. He agreed and finished writing the statement at 10:30 p. m. The confession was also tape recorded and this was completed at 2:30 a. m. In addition, police officers went to defendant's home that night and, after serving a search warrant on his father, searched the residence and seized various items. The next day, pursuant to a second search warrant, police seized defendant's automobile and searched it at the police station.

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE CONFESSIONS

A. Miranda Violations.

Prior to the trial defendant moved to suppress his confessions. Among the grounds urged was that the failure of the interrogating officer to give him the Miranda warnings prior to the October 20th questioning so tainted the October 22nd station house interrogation as to make inadmissible the confessions obtained that night. The trial justice, however, found as a fact that defendant was not in custody when the October 20th questioning took place and accordingly rejected this ground as a reason for suppression.

Miranda sets out the procedures that police officers must follow at a "custodial interrogation." It does not, however, dictate exclusion of a confession merely because questioning of the accused took place in a station house or because the interview was of a person suspected of a crime. Although questioning in that kind of atmosphere has its coercive aspects, the person questioned is nonetheless not entitled to Miranda warnings unless, in addition, he has been "taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d at 706. It is only "that sort of coercive environment to which Miranda by its terms was made applicable, and to which it is limited." Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977).

In the case before us, defendant on October 20, at the request of the police and accompanied by his father, went to the police station for questioning. He testified that he did not feel that he was then under arrest; and at the conclusion of that evening's brief interrogation, he left the station house without having any restriction placed upon his freedom to depart or to go where he wished.

Although police suspicions began to center on him following that interrogation, not until the following day when his mother and sister identified the pink cloth found near the victim's body did the police finally order defendant apprehended.

Clearly these facts establish that on the 20th defendant's freedom had not been so restricted as to render him in custody, and, therefore, the omission of the Miranda warnings at the interrogation that evening in no way tainted or made inadmissible his later confessions.

B. Claim of Wrongful Detention under Super.R.Crim.P. 5(a).

The defendant also complains that arresting him at 8 p. m. on October 22 and not bringing him before a District Court judge until 2 p. m. on October 23 violated the provision of Super.R.Crim.P. 5(a) which requires that a person arrested without a warrant be taken before a District Court judge "without unnecessary delay." The defendant contends that the delay in this case rendered his detention unlawful and the confessions obtained during that period inadmissible under principles enunciated in Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). That argument is clearly without merit.

The period between defendant's arrest and his appearance before a District Court judge may have been unduly protracted. Nonetheless, the critical period for determining whether the questioning was so unreasonable as to affect the admissibility of his confessions was the span of less than 7 hours between arrest and the last of those confessions, and not the more extended period between his arrest and appearance. In short, delay, if it is to render a confession inadmissible, must have been operative in inducing the confession, and obviously only the detention that precedes a confession can have that effect. See United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 70, 64 S.Ct. 896, 898, 88 L.Ed. 1140, 1143 (1944); United States v. Seohnlein, 423 F.2d 1051, 1053 (4th Cir. 1970); Bailey v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 243-45, 328 F.2d 542, 544-46 (1964); State v. Traub, 151 Conn. 246, 249-50, 196 A.2d 755, 757 (1963).

In this case, defendant confessed within one-half hour of his arrest and that confession was reduced to a writing signed by him, as well as recorded by him on a tape, by 2:30 a. m. on October 23 clearly a period of time between arrest and confession not constituting an unnecessary delay. People v. Skowronski, 61 Mich.App. 71, 82, 232 N.W.2d 306, 311 (1975); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 463 Pa. 1, 9-10, 329 A.2d 881, 885-86 (1974); Hemauer v. State, 64 Wis.2d 62, 74, 218 N.W.2d 342, 347-48 (1974). That defendant, after confessing, was held prior to arraignment for an additional period of time which, when added to preconfession time, may have been sufficient to constitute in the aggregate unnecessary delay was without causative effect upon his prior decision to confess. "Even if his detention during this...