Monts v. State
22 McCanless 31, 400 S.W.2d 722, 218 Tenn. 31 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the totality of the circumstances test for voluntariness, a confession is admissible if freely and voluntarily given, and the failure of police to advise a defendant of the right to counsel does not, by itself, render the confession inadmissible, particularly when the defendant did not request counsel.
Facts:
- On the night of October 6, 1960, Henry Clay Monts, Johnnie West, and Joel Olds were overheard by a witness, Trudy Carroll, planning a burglary of the Ace Sundry Store in Memphis.
- Around 12:50 AM on October 7, 1960, a burglary was reported at the Ace Sundry Store.
- Police Officer Frank Bruno entered the store to investigate and was fatally shot. Another officer saw a man fleeing the scene.
- Later that same night, Trudy Carroll treated a wound on Monts' side. Monts told her he could not go to a doctor because of the police.
- A .38 Smith & Wesson pistol was stolen from a nearby grocery store that same night, and ballistics evidence showed the bullet that killed Officer Bruno was consistent with being fired from such a weapon.
- On September 26, 1962, after being arrested in Chicago, Monts was brought to Memphis for questioning about the murder.
- During a three-hour interrogation, Inspector Swann played tape recordings of statements from Olds and others implicating Monts.
- Following the interrogation, Monts gave a detailed 13-page written confession detailing his and West's involvement in the burglary and murder, which he signed. West was not present when the confession was given.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry Clay Monts and Johnnie West were indicted for first-degree murder in a Tennessee trial court.
- In their first trial, both were convicted and sentenced to death.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed those convictions on appeal due to a faulty jury instruction and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Upon retrial in the same trial court, Monts and West were again convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 150 years each in prison.
- The trial court overruled their motion for a new trial.
- Monts and West, as plaintiffs in error (appellants), appealed their second convictions to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 the failure of police to advise an intelligent defendant with prior criminal experience of his right to counsel before a custodial interrogation automatically render a subsequent confession involuntary and inadmissible, when the defendant did not request an attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
No. The failure of police to advise a defendant of his right to counsel does not automatically render a confession involuntary and inadmissible. The true test for admissibility is whether the confession was made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any sort, which is a preliminary question for the trial judge to determine based on the totality of the circumstances. The court reasoned that while the failure to advise a defendant of his rights is a factor to consider, it is not dispositive. The court distinguished this case from Escobedo v. State of Illinois, where the defendant had repeatedly requested and been denied access to his lawyer. Here, the trial judge found that Monts, an intelligent man with a high school education and prior criminal record, never requested counsel and that his will was not overborne. Therefore, he made an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, and the confession was properly admitted.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the pre-Miranda standard for the admissibility of confessions, which was based on the Due Process Clause's 'voluntariness' test. The court narrowly interprets the Supreme Court's decision in Escobedo, limiting its application to situations where a suspect has affirmatively requested counsel. This decision places significant discretion in the hands of the trial judge to assess the totality of the circumstances, including a defendant's personal characteristics, in determining whether a confession was voluntary. The holding that a co-defendant's confession is admissible with a limiting instruction in a joint trial reflects a legal standard that would be overturned just two years later in Bruton v. United States (1968).
Unlock the full brief for Monts v. State