![]() Gammons, I am Jack Love, the Assistant District Attorney, and this is Dorothy Ploggatt, the stenographer, and Mr. The statement taken by the assistant district attorney commences as follows: “BY MR. However, the record in the present case is not silent, and its review leads us to the correctness of the ruling of the trial court. While none of the above cases are applicable here on the facts, all of them recognize that the right to counsel or to remain silent may be intelligently and knowingly waived, and wc so stated in Pece v. , at 795, and that no statement elecited by the police during the interrogation may be used against him at a criminal trial.” Escobedo v. We are in full accord with the rule that a confession obtained from a de *87fendant is inadmissible in evidence against him “where * * * the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer, and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent, the accused has been denied ‘the Assistance of Counsel’ in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution as ‘made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,’ Gideon v. The real issues here are whether the defendant was timely advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent and, if so, whether he effectively waived those rights. The court found that the defendant had been thoroughly and completely advised of his rights and that the statement was freely and voluntarily made by him, that it was made without coercion and was, therefore, admissible. Preceding the trial, a hearing was conducted by the court to determine the admissibility of the statement. ![]() It is the admission into evidence of the transcribed statement, in which the defendant admitted his guilt, that is challenged on this appeal. That afternoon he was taken to the office of an assistant district attorney, at the latter’s request, where a statement consisting of questions by the assistant district attorney and responses by the defendant were taken by a stenographer in the presence of a deputy sheriff. ![]() The next morning the defendant was taken into custody by a deputy sheriff and interrogated at the police station by the chief of police, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an undersheriff and another police officer. The specific crime charged was armed robbery of a Safeway supermarket on -July 22, 1963, in Hobbs, New Mexico. was without counsel was admitted into evidence over objection. on the ground he was denied due process in that a confession elicited from him during interrogation by an assistant district attorney when he. He appeals from the judgment imposing sentence. armed, robbery, in violation of § 40A-16-2 of the. The defendant was "convicted- of- the crime of. Walter Joseph GAMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. Walter Joseph GAMMONS, Defendant-AppellantĤ12 P.2d 256 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |