State v. Soliz

• Decision Date: 10 June 1968
• Docket Number: No. 8248,8248
• Citation: 442 P.2d 575,1968 NMSC 101,79 N.M. 263
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos SOLIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 575

442 P.2d 575

79 N.M. 263

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santos SOLIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8248.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 10, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1968.

Chester A. Hunker, Clovis, Tom Up-church, Jr., Amarillo, Tex., for defendant-appellant

Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Tom Overstreet, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

CARMODY, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of the 'unlawful sale of narcotic drugs.' He was originally charged in a two-count information, but the first count was dismissed and defendant was convicted on the second count, following which he was sentenced to a term in the penitentiary, and he now appeals.

Defendant's claims of error relate to the sentence imposed, an error in the judgment, and two points concerning the admission in evidence of an oral confession purportedly made by the defendant.

We will first dispose of the claimed errors with respect to the confession. The facts with respect thereto are: The defendant was arrested several days after he had been observed effecting a sale of narcotic drugs. The arresting officer testified that at the time the warrant was served defendant was advised of his right to counsel; that any statement he might make could be used against him; and that he was not required to make any statement. Defendant was then immediately taken to the police office and again, according to the arresting officer, advised of the rights above stated and, in addition, that 'no promises or threats were to be made against him if he made any such statement.' The officer also testified that defendant did not request counsel, nor did he take advantage of the offer to use the telephone. The officer then testified that, following a relatively brief questioning, defendant admitted certain narcotic activities and specifically admitted making the sale on the date upon which the conviction was based. The testimony of this officer was elicited upon the State's presentation of its case, and no objection of any type was made. Thereafter, in the process of submitting his defense, the defendant testified that he had admitted making the sale in question, but denied that he had actually made such sale. He explained he made the statement only because the officer told him that he would hold defendant and his two small boys until he had answered all questions, and that he could not have an attorney until after he had done so.

All of the above occurred in the presence of the jury, and it was not until during the presentation of rebuttal testimony by the State that anything occurred to alert the trial court that there might be any necessity for an independent hearing of the voluntariness of the confession.

The rebuttal testimony was an attempt to elicit from another police officer the substance of the conversation at the police station. The following occurred:

'Q What was the essence of his statement?

A During the course of the interview, he admitted the sale.

MR. HUNKER (Attorney for defendant):

We object to what the defendant said on the basis of the fact there is some evidence now of the fact the statement was made not a voluntary statement by either force or coercion.

THE COURT: Objection sustained unless you want me to hear the question without the jury.

MR. STAGNER (District Attorney): We will pass that question up, Your honor.'

Other than the above exchange and the trial court's subsequent instruction directing the jury to disregard the defendant's statement if they found the same to be involuntary, the record is silent as to any specific announcement by the trial court on the issue of voluntariness of the confession.

Although defendant places great reliance on State v. Martinez, 30 N.M. 178, 230 P. 379 (1924), we do not agree that the case is in point, although we reaffirm the decision; but nevertheless, in Martinez, proper objection was made.

The instant case is similar to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 (1964). In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States held the defendant entitled to an evidentiary hearing by the trial judge to determine voluntariness and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination as to whether the confession was voluntarily given, and if found to be involuntary, directed a new trial be granted. One of the differences between the instant case and Jackson, as we see it, is that the proof showed the Jackson confession was obtained following the injection of demerol and the trial court indicated an awareness that Jackson's counsel was questioning the circumstances under which the interrogation took place. As shown in Footnote 4 in the Jackson case, it is apparent the trial court was fully alerted to the fact that the defendant contended the confession did not have the weight the law requires. Thus the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the trial judge, under the circumstances, should have considered an objection to have been made and therefore ordered a hearing on the voluntariness of the confession. As a matter of fact, the opinion of the court in Jackson makes it implicit that an objection must be made; the court stated, 'A defendant objecting to the admission of a confession is entitled to a fair hearing in which both the underlying factual issues and the voluntariness of his confession are actually and reliably determined.'

The instant case is distinguishable from Jackson in that no question of voluntariness was raised at the time of the admission of the confession, no suggestion was made during the presentation of the defendant's case that an independent hearing should be allowed by the court, and, actually, the court was not alerted to the problem until the time of the exchange above quoted. Even then the offer made by the court was not accepted by the defendant. It is granted the defendant has the right to such a determination; but we do not believe a defendant can sit idly by and fail to accept an offer by the court for such a hearing and subsequently predicate error on the fact that he did not receive such a hearing; cf., State v. Upton, 60 N.M. 205, 290 P.2d 440 (1955); State v. Edwards, 54 N.M. 189, 217 P.2d 854 (1950); nor do we believe that Jackson v. Denno, supra, requires this.

We have felt it necessary to consider and distinguish Jackson v. Denno, because, until recently, it was considered to be the final word on the subject. However, our attention is now directed to Pinto v. Pierce, 389 U.S. 31, 88 S.Ct. 192, 19 L.Ed.2d 31 (1967), wherein the Court reversed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus by a United States district court which had basically relied upon Jackson. United States ex rel. Pierce v. Pinto, 259 F.Supp. 729 (D.N.J.1966), aff'd 374 F.2d 472 (3d Cir. 1967). The facts of Pinto are very close to those before us, with the one relatively minor exception that counsel for the defendant specifically stated he had no objection to the voluntariness hearing in the presence of the jury. In any event, the Supreme Court of the United States stated the following:

'* * * This Court has never ruled that all voluntariness hearings must be held outside the presence of the jury, regardless of the circumstances. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), held that a defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his challenged confession is introduced without a determination by the trial judge of its voluntariness after an adequate hearing. A confession by the defendant found to be involuntary by the trial judge is not to be heard by the jury which determines his guilt or innocence. Hence, because a disputed confession may be found involuntary and inadmissible by the judge, it would seem prudent to hold voluntariness hearings outside the presence of the jury. In this case, however, the confession was held voluntary and admitted as evidence suitable for consideration by the jury. In addition, there is no claim that because the hearing was held in the presence of the jury it was inadequate or had any other unfair consequences for the respondent.'

In Pece v. Cox, 74 N.M. 591, 396 P.2d 422 (1964), we pointed out that New Mexico follows the so-called 'Massachusetts' rule mentioned in Jackson. See, also, State v. Ortega, 77 N.M. 7, 419 P.2d 219 (1966); State v. Gammons, 76 N.M. 85, 412 P.2d 256 (1966); and State v. Mase, 75 N.M. 542, 407 P.2d 874 (1965). Therefore, it is necessary that a determination be made by the court respecting the voluntariness of a confession, and we reiterate the admonition in Pinto that 'it would seem prudent to hold voluntariness hearings outside the presence of the jury.' Although there is lacking in this case a specific announcement by the court, when the total circumstances as shown by the record are considered, we are of the opinion that the trial court made such a determination. It is implicit in the court's offer above noted, together with the subsequent instruction to the jury that they should disregard the statements if they determined it to be involuntary, that the necessary determination was made. Obviously, such an instruction would not have been given if the court had the slightest question of the voluntariness of the confession. It follows that 'it is clearly evident from the record' that the trial court 'fully and independently' resolved the issue of voluntariness against the defendant. Cf., Mitchell v. Stephens, 232 F.Supp. 497 (E.D.Ark.1964). In our judgment, there was no violation of the defendant's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

As an additional point, but also involving the confession, it is claimed that allowing the confession in evidence was error because it was apparent that defendant was not provided with counsel, in violation of his right to due process of law. Admittedly, the right to counsel may be waived. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); State...