People v. Stewart
62 Cal. 2d 571, 43 Cal. Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal investigation has focused on a suspect who is in custody, a confession obtained through a process of interrogation designed to elicit incriminating statements is inadmissible unless the prosecution can affirmatively show the suspect was informed of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent.
Facts:
- Between December 1962 and January 1963, a series of violent robberies occurred in a Los Angeles neighborhood.
- On December 21, 1962, Meriwether Wells was robbed of her purse, which contained dividend checks.
- On January 19, 1963, Lueile O. Mitchell was beaten and robbed, and she later died from her head wounds.
- The stolen dividend checks were traced to Roy Allen Stewart after a co-signer, Lena Franklin, identified him as the person who cashed them.
- On January 31, 1963, police arrested Stewart at his residence.
- During a search of Stewart's residence, police found items belonging to Miss Mitchell and several other robbery victims.
- Stewart was held in custody for five days, from January 31 to February 5, and was interrogated daily by police.
- On February 5, 1963, after an officer directly accused him of the murder, Stewart confessed to robbing and killing Miss Mitchell.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Allen Stewart was tried in a California superior court (the court of first instance) on charges of robbery and first-degree murder.
- A jury found Stewart guilty of both charges.
- At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the jury fixed the penalty at death.
- The trial court denied Stewart's motions for a new trial and for a reduction of the penalty.
- An automatic appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of California.
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 admission of a defendant's confession violate their constitutional right to counsel when the confession was obtained after the defendant was arrested and subjected to a process of interrogations designed to elicit incriminating statements, and the record is silent as to whether the defendant was advised of their right to counsel and to remain silent?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes. The admission of the confession violates the defendant's constitutional rights because it was obtained after the accusatory stage had been reached, without an affirmative showing that the defendant was advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The court applied the test from People v. Dorado, finding that the accusatory stage begins when an investigation focuses on a particular suspect who is in custody, and police undertake a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements. Here, Stewart's arrest signified the investigation had focused on him, and the five days of continuous interrogation constituted a process designed to secure a confession. Because the record is silent on whether Stewart was warned of his rights, the court cannot presume he was aware of them or that the police performed a duty that was not yet legally established. The admission of such an unconstitutionally obtained confession requires reversal.
Concurring - Burke, J.
The conviction should be reversed. While agreeing with the outcome, this opinion rejects the majority's automatic reversal rule. Instead, the admission of the confession should be analyzed for prejudicial error under the California Constitution's 'miscarriage of justice' standard from People v. Watson. Upon reviewing the entire record, it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached if the illegally obtained confession had been excluded. Therefore, the error was prejudicial and compels reversal.
Dissenting - Schauer, J.
The conviction should be affirmed. This opinion agrees with the concurring justice's legal framework that a harmless error analysis should apply, but disagrees with the conclusion. The independent circumstantial evidence against the defendant—specifically, the discovery of stolen items from multiple victims in his home—was so overwhelming that the confession was merely cumulative. It is not probable that the outcome would have been different had the confession been excluded, and therefore the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the principles established in Escobedo v. Illinois and People v. Dorado, providing a more concrete test for when a suspect's Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches during police interrogation. By defining the 'accusatory stage' with the objective factors of arrest, custody, and a process of interrogation, the court moved away from subjective inquiries into police intent. Critically, the court's refusal to presume on a silent record that a suspect was advised of their rights placed a clear burden on the prosecution to prove a valid waiver, foreshadowing the affirmative advisement requirements that would be mandated nationally by Miranda v. Arizona a year later.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Stewart