Commonwealth v. Briggs
12 A.3d 291, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 107, 608 Pa. 430 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A volunteered and spontaneous incriminating statement made by a defendant after invoking the right to counsel is admissible if it is not the product of express questioning or its functional equivalent. Police conversation that is not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, even if it includes a reference to another case's negative outcome for a silent defendant, does not constitute impermissible interrogation under the Fifth Amendment or deliberate elicitation under the Sixth Amendment.
Facts:
- On March 31, 2004, Bradford County Sheriff's Deputies Christopher Burgert and Michael VanKuren went to Arlan Briggs' property to serve arrest warrants on his son, Dustin Briggs, and Briggs' girlfriend, April Harris Duva.
- Arlan Briggs saw the deputies, told Duva to hide in the basement, and did not answer the door. After hearing what he thought were work-related banging noises, Arlan went outside.
- Arlan later discovered Deputy VanKuren deceased and Deputy Burgert gravely wounded in the junkyard area of the property and called 9-1-1.
- According to a cellmate, Bradley Brown, Briggs later admitted that when the deputies approached him, he pulled his revolver and shot both of them multiple times.
- Briggs took the wounded Deputy Burgert's service weapon, a Glock pistol. During a struggle over the Glock, it discharged and wounded Burgert again.
- Briggs fled the scene but was arrested the following evening. After his arrest and arraignment, Briggs invoked his right to counsel.
- On April 2, 2004, while in jail, state troopers informed Briggs that his chosen attorney had declined to represent him. During a discussion about obtaining a public defender, a trooper mentioned another defendant, John Kohler, who didn't talk and 'ended up getting the death penalty anyway.'
- As the troopers and correctional officers were leaving the room, Briggs began sobbing and spontaneously stated, 'I’m sorry, I’m sorry, tell their families I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to kill them.'
Procedural Posture:
- Dustin Briggs was charged in the Bradford County Court of Common Pleas with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of robbery.
- The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office assumed prosecution of the case at the request of the local District Attorney.
- Briggs filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress his jailhouse statement and motions for a change of venue, all of which were denied by the trial court.
- On February 7, 2006, a jury found Briggs guilty of all charges.
- Following a penalty phase hearing, the jury returned a sentence of death on February 9, 2006.
- The trial court formally imposed the judgment of sentence of death on March 15, 2006.
- Briggs (Appellant) filed a direct and automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's conversation with an arraigned defendant who has invoked his right to counsel—which includes mentioning another defendant who refused to talk received the death penalty—constitute impermissible interrogation or deliberate elicitation in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, thus requiring suppression of a subsequent incriminating statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Todd
No, the officer's conversation was not impermissible interrogation or deliberate elicitation, and the subsequent statement is admissible. Under the Fifth Amendment, the statement was not the product of interrogation. Trooper Pelachick did not engage in express questioning, and his conversation was not the 'functional equivalent' of interrogation under Rhode Island v. Innis. The trooper's purpose was to inform Briggs about his counsel situation and facilitate getting a new lawyer. The reference to the Kohler case was an off-hand comment in the context of a future, counseled interview, not a practice the troopers should have known was reasonably likely to elicit an immediate incriminating response. Briggs' statement was a spontaneous utterance made after the conversation ended as the troopers were leaving, not a direct product of the trooper's comment. Under the Sixth Amendment's 'deliberate elicitation' standard, the troopers did not deliberately and designedly set out to obtain a statement, but rather sought to honor Briggs' request for counsel. The incriminating statement was obtained by 'luck or happenstance,' not as a result of a constitutional violation.
Dissenting - Justice Saylor
Yes, the trooper's actions constituted deliberate elicitation in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and the statement should have been suppressed. The majority underestimates the coercive impact of the trooper's remarks, which were made while Briggs was shackled, sleep-deprived, and without access to an attorney. The trooper knowingly exploited the opportunity to confront the accused without counsel by encouraging him to talk, suggesting it was 'wise,' and overtly using the prospect of the death penalty to counteract the anticipated advice of counsel. This conduct represents a breach of the state's affirmative obligation not to circumvent the right to counsel. It is irrelevant whether the trooper intended the statement to be made immediately or later; the act of deliberate elicitation itself violated Briggs' rights.
Analysis:
This decision refines the boundary between permissible police communication and unconstitutional interrogation after a defendant invokes the right to counsel. By narrowly construing the 'functional equivalent' and 'deliberate elicitation' tests, the court signals that not all persuasive police comments will invalidate a subsequent spontaneous confession. The holding emphasizes the context of the police-initiated contact, finding that a conversation aimed at facilitating a defendant's request for counsel is less likely to be deemed improper. This may create a gray area, potentially allowing law enforcement to engage in procedural conversations that could indirectly influence a defendant without crossing the constitutional line into impermissible interrogation.
