Unsworth v. Gladden
| Decision Date | 13 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 66-108. |
| Citation | 261 F. Supp. 897 |
| Parties | William Edward UNSWORTH, Petitioner, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Edward Murphy, Jr., Portland, Or., for petitioner.
Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen. for Oregon, David H. Blunt, Asst. Atty. Gen. for Oregon, Salem, Or., for respondent.
This case is before the Court on William Edward Unsworth's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He seeks to set aside a jury conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for second degree murder. Unsworth contends that the trial judge improperly admitted in evidence incriminatory oral statements made by him at the time of his arrest when he was so intoxicated that he was unable to make a coherent or voluntary statement, and that he was not warned of his rights as required by Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), and State v. Neely, (1964), 239 Or. 487, 395 P.2d 557, 398 P.2d 482 (1965).
Unsworth further asserts that the written statement he signed on the afternoon after his arrest in the District Attorney's office in Klamath Falls was "the result of interrogation and accusation," and that the trial judge should have held a hearing on the admissibility of these statements outside the presence of the jury, in accordance with Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed. 2d 908 (1964).
Finally, he asserts that there was insufficient evidence of intent to satisfy the constitutional guaranty of due process.
The State of Oregon admits Unsworth's intoxication at the time of his arrest, but asserts that his oral statements were admissible because they were made without interrogation and because there was no showing that Unsworth's ability to refuse to answer questions was overpowered "by duress, compulsion or by administration of some external agency," or that his drinking was so excessive and protracted that he became a "madman fully deprived of his reason."
At Unsworth's murder trial, Deputy Sheriff Hutton testified that at 9:35 on the evening of April 15, 1962, he received a collect call from Unsworth in Beatty. Unsworth told him that he was having the "same old trouble," which Hutton interpreted as domestic trouble with his wife. Unsworth asked Hutton to come to Beatty and said, "`If you don't come down here you might prevent a murder.'"
Hutton testified he told Unsworth, "You don't make sense, you must be drinking." Unsworth replied, "Oh, go to hell," and hung up.
Hutton did not respond to this call. Later that evening he went to Beatty after receiving a call from Bill Walker, Unsworth's employer, asking him to investigate the shooting of Tony Moore.
Hutton arrived at the Unsworth cabin about midnight. With him were Walker and Deputy Sheriff Conroy. Hutton testified that they found Unsworth lying face down on the bed asleep or intoxicated. They awakened him and found that he was unable to get up without slipping and could not stand without help. At different times, Hutton described Unsworth's speech as jabbering, babbling, heavily slurred, and thick tongued. He said Unsworth's remarks were contradictory, and that he was very intoxicated. He testified that Unsworth said,
Deputy Conroy testified that Unsworth wanted a clean shirt before being taken by the Deputies to Klamath Falls, but he could not unbutton the one he was wearing. He began to rip it, so Deputy Conroy helped him unbutton it. Deputy Conroy was helping him put on his clean shirt and was buttoning it, when Unsworth told him to keep his hands off him. Both Deputies described Unsworth as loud and aggressive.
The following portions of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Oregon, taken from the transcript of the testimony of Deputies Conroy and Hutton at the trial, further illustrate Unsworth's condition and contain the statements he made to the Deputies:
Hutton repeated in substance Conroy's statements and also testified as follows:
State v. Unsworth, 240 Or. 453, 457-458, 402 P.2d 507 (1965).
At approximately 5:00 A.M., April 16, 1962, which was five hours after Unsworth's arrest, Deputy District Attorney Thomas and Deputy Sheriffs Somers and Bogart questioned Unsworth in the Klamath Falls jail barber shop. Thomas testified that he
Since he was unable to obtain satisfactory responses to his questions, Thomas had Unsworth taken to a cell.
That afternoon, Sheriff Britton, whom Unsworth called "Red" and considered a friend, questioned Unsworth. Thomas, who also questioned Unsworth, testified that in the intervening ten hours, Unsworth had become sober, that he spoke in normal tones, and was no longer boisterous. Unsworth related the circumstances of the killing and claimed that it was accidental. Toward the end of the questioning, his statement was reduced to writing. The interrogating officers did not warn Unsworth of his rights until they started dictating the statement.
In the written statement, which he corrected and signed, Unsworth admitted that he had killed Tony Moore, but claimed the shooting was accidental. At the trial, he objected to the admission of the written statement on the grounds that it did not contain a record of the entire conversation, and that the officers did not warn him of his rights until after they began dictating the statement.
Unsworth did not object to testimony by Hutton, Conroy, and Thomas about the oral statements he made at the time of his arrest and in the Klamath Falls jail barber shop.
The trial judge allowed the jury to determine the admissibility of the written statement.
After the State concluded its case, Unsworth testified that on April 15, 1962, he invited Tony Moore, with whom he had worked all day, to come to his house for dinner. When Moore had not arrived by eight o'clock, Unsworth went to a neighbor's where he thought Moore might be. Moore was not there. On the way home, Unsworth was stopped by an Indian, who told Unsworth that Indians didn't like white people in Beatty and that he was going to get his gun and run Unsworth out of town or shoot him. These threats made Unsworth uneasy because he knew of three unsolved murders that occurred just before he moved to Beatty. One was in the house where he and his wife were living, and the other two in the house across the street.
Unsworth testified that he called Jack Hutton after his confrontation with the Indian, and complained of the same old trouble, by which he meant threats from Indians. He had called Jack Hutton for protection when he was threatened on prior occasions.
Tony Moore arrived with a half-gallon of wine between nine and ten p. m. While Unsworth, his wife and Moore were drinking their first glass of wine, they heard a noise outside. Unsworth took his rifle, cocked it, and went outside to investigate.
When he failed to find anyone, he returned to the cabin where he attempted to uncock the gun, a lever action Winchester 30-30 with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron, In re
...who examined him before he was questioned concluded, however, that he was rational, physically coordinated (compare Unsworth v. Gladden (D.Ore.1966) 261 F.Supp. 897), and sufficiently mentally alert to answer questions. The tape indicates that, although his speech was slurred and he had obv......
-
United States v. Bernett
...76, 77, 47 F.2d 438, 439 (1931). 35 Blackburn v. Alabama, supra note 30, 361 U.S. at 211, 80 S.Ct. at 282. See also Unsworth v. Gladden, 261 F.Supp. 897, 902 (D.Or.1966). 36 Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1879, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961). But see, note 37, infra. 37 Ad......
-
Renfro v. Swenson
...at the time of his statement interview as he now claims, his statement clearly would not have been admissible. See Unsworth v. Gladden, 261 F.Supp. 897 (D.Ore., 1966). Petitioner specifically requested that Sergeant Jenkins, a witness who obviously was in a position to have personal knowled......
-
State v. McFall
...a similar view to that expressed here; also see Logner v. State of North Carolina, 260 F.Supp. 970 (M.D.N.C.1966), and Unsworth v. Gladden, 261 F.Supp. 897 (D.Or.1966), which cases appear to take a contrary view to that expressed It should be made clear that it is our view that if the polic......