State v. Sandoval
| Decision Date | 25 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 10289,10289 |
| Citation | 92 Idaho 853,452 P.2d 350 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jimmie Jim SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Alan D. Wilson, Mountain Home, for appellant.
Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., and George C. Detweiler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, Fred Kennedy, Pros. Atty., Elmore County, Mountain Home, for appellee.
Defendant (appellant) Jimmie Jim Sandoval was convicted and adjudged guilty of involuntary manslaughter as defined in I.C. § 18-4006(2)(a). 1
The facts adduced at trial show that appellant was driving a 1957 Buick Sedan in a westerly direction on U. S. Highway #30 in Elmore County early on the morning of November 5, 1967. Three other persons were passengers in the Buick, but claimed to be asleep at the time of the accident. According to witnesses who were driving in a vehicle behind Sandoval's car, the Buick was traveling at 50 mph in an erratic manner, weaving from side to side in the westbound lane. At approximately 1:40 A.M., about five miles east of Mountain Home, Sandoval's auto crossed over into the eastbound lane and brushed against an eastbound trailer truck. The left front tire and fender of the Buick sideswiped the left rear tires of the trailer. The Buick continued moving westerly in the eastbound lane until a short distance later it ran head-on into a 1965 Falcon station wagon which was being driven in an easterly direction in the eastbound lane. The driver of the Falcon, Viola Jean Lewis, was killed in the accident.
Appellant testified that a sudden blowout in the left-hand front tire of the Buick caused it to veer into the eastbound lane. While it is true that the tire in question was deflated when examined following the accident, other evidence indicated that the deflation occurred when Sandoval's car struck the tires of the trailer. There was evidence, including testimony of appellant, himself, that Sandoval had imbibed at least four twelve-ounce cans of beer during the evening prior to the collision. Twelve empty cans and four full cans of beer were found in the Buick.
The road was two-lane, straight, slightly undulating and dry. The night was dark and clear. Visibility was such that Sandoval should have seen the lights of the oncoming trailer truck and Falcon station wagon.
Upon conviction, following a verdict of guilty by the jury, the Court sentenced appellant to three years imprisonment in the Idaho State Penitentiary. Sentence was suspended on condition:
(1) that appellant serve six months in the Elmore County Jail, less time already served;
(2) that appellant agree to be placed on probation to the Idaho State Board of Corrections for the remainder of the three years;
(3) that appellant not operate a motor vehicle in the United States during his period of probation.
Several of appellant's assignments of error concern admission into evidence of incriminating statements made by Sandoval prior to arrest. Over objection, state's rebuttal witness Deputy Sheriff Robert J. Mendiola testified to the statements which were made in answer to questions posed by Mendiola and by Prosecuting Attorney Kennedy. The questioning took place on November 7, 1967, at approximately 11:00 A.M. in appellant's room in the Elmore Memorial Hospital where appellant was recovering from minor injuries suffered in the accident. Two law enforcement officials (the prosecutor and the uniformed deputy sheriff) were present, as well as another, unnamed, patient. A nurse, Margaret Gillespie, was present prior to questioning but left during the actual interrogation. Appellant was in bed when interrogated. At a pre-trial hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, Mendiola and Nurse Gillespie declared that appellant was fully advised of his Miranda rights. They testified that he specifically waived his right to remain silent and to have counsel present. He also signed and initialled a 'notification of rights:'
'NOTIFICATIONS OF RIGHTS
'Before we ask you any questions, you must understand that you have certain rights under both the Idaho and United States Constitutions. You do not have to talk to us. You have the absolute right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will 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 the advice and presence of a lawyer even if you cannot afford to hire one. If you want a lawyer and cannot afford one you have the absolute right to remain silent until one is appointed to represent you, which will be done at public expense. If you wish to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering questions at any time and remain silent.
'WAIVER
'(Place initials at the end of each statement below only after you completely understand what such statement means.)
I have read the above statement of my rights and understand that:
1. I have the absolute right to remain silent. J.S.
2. Anything I say can and will be used against me in court. J.S.
3. I have the right to the advice of a lawyer before answering any questions. J.S.
4. I have the right to have a lawyer present during any questioning. J.S.
5. I have the right to a lawyer even if I am needy and therefore cannot afford one and one will be appointed to represent me, if I wish, at this stage of the proceeding, at public expense. J.S.
6. If I choose to answer any questions without the advice of a lawyer being present, I have the right to stop answering questions at any time and remain silent. J.S.
'I can read and write the English language, or if I cannot, the above rights were explained to me by an interpreter who speaks the language I can read and write. I am willing to answer questions and make a statement. I do not want a lawyer. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me, and no pressure of any kind has been used against me.
/s/ Margaret P. Gillespie
Witness
/s/ R. J. Mendiola
Signed: /s/ Jimmie Sandoval
Hospital
Place
11-7-67
Date
10:27 a. m.
Time'
At the time of the questioning the deputy sheriff knew that appellant was the driver of the Buick sedan, believed that a crime had been committed when the accident took place, and believed that the appellant would be accused of a crime. Nevertheless the deputy sheriff contended that he and the prosecuting attorney questioned appellant in order to complete an accident investigation report. After the visit in the hospital a complaint was sworn to by Mendiola and a warrant for Sandoval's arrest was issued.
The conversation in the hospital room was conducted in English. Mendiola and Gillespie both gave evidence that appellant was able to speak and understand the English language. Other evidence indicated that appellant had received 5 years of schooling, ordinarily spoke Navajo, but had some basic knowledge of English. The pre-trial hearing and the trial were conducted in English. Defendant testified at length in English at each proceeding. At no time did his counsel request an interpreter. Nevertheless appellant stated that he could not understand many of the terms used by the law officers when being informed of his Miranda rights. He also said that he was afraid he would be thrown in jail if he did not answer the questions posed. However Sandoval said that this was his personal belief, resulting from conversations with friends who had been arrested at other times, and not an idea that had been put in his mind by Mendiola or the prosecuting attorney. It was also established that appellant never before had been in trouble with the police. When the proceedings took place appellant was 21 years old, had lived practically all his life on an Indian reservation, and had had only minimal contacts with white society. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district judge stated from the bench:
'THE COURT: There appears to be a series of questions involved here. I have no doubt, Mr. Kennedy, but what the rights of the defendant were thoroughly and adequately explained to him and he was thoroughly and adequately apprised of his rights. The only question is whether or not he understood them.
'Certainly from his testimony there would be a doubt cast upon the ability of the defendant to understand. It is difficult, particularly with the leading questions and he appeared to be susceptible to leading questions from counsel and the Court.
'His background would show, I believe, that he is capable of understanding, particularly when somesone says, 'You don't have to say anything if you don't want to tell us.'
In its order denying the motion to suppress evidence, the court found:
'* * * that at the time of said conversation, the investigation was a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but had begun to focus on a particular suspect, but that said defendant was not in custody of law enforcement officials at that time.
'* * * That * * * the above named defendant could speak and understand the English language, which is the language used by the said Robert J. Mendiola and Jimmie Jim Sandoval during said conversation.
'That * * * defendant * * * knowingly and intelligently waived his right to such attorney and his right to remain silent, and the resulting admission or confession made by the defendant, if any, after said waiver is a voluntary statement and should be admissible in evidence against the above named defendant in the trial of said cause.'
The first issue to be resolved is whether such a stage in the proceedings had been reached at the time of the questioning that the appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. State
...not extend the requirements of Miranda, supra, to the essentially different fact situation in the instant case.' In State v. Sandoval, 92 Idaho 853, 452 P.2d 350 (1969), a policeman and a prosecutor questioned an automobile manslaughter suspect, on whom the investigation had definitely focu......
-
State v. Bainbridge
...and even when a defendant is, as Dr. Jean Gardner described the defendant, in the dull normal range of intelligence (State v. Sandaval [Sandoval], 92 Idaho 853 (1969)). Also pertaining to this question is State v. Hatton, 95 Idaho 856 (1974). Under the circumstances in this case, I think th......
-
State v. Padilla
...of those statements. See Mallory v. United States, supra; Mathies v. United States, 374 F.2d 312 (D.C.Cir.1967); State v. Sandoval, 92 Idaho 853, 452 P.2d 350 (1969). As to the February 20 statements, we again note the questioning lasted approximately thirty minutes and we find no evidence ......
-
Hammond v. State
...Before Custodial Interrogation, 31 A.L.R.3d 565, 620-25 (1970).26 Accord People v. Milhollin, 751 P.2d 43 (Colo.1988); State v. Sandoval, 92 Idaho 853, 452 P.2d 350 (1969); State v. Brunner, 211 Kan. 596, 507 P.2d 233 (1973); People v. Clark, 55 Ill.App.3d 496, 13 Ill.Dec. 338, 371 N.E.2d 3......