State v. Boggs
559 P.2d 11, 1977 Wash. App. LEXIS 1841, 16 Wash. App. 682 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once a suspect in custody invokes the right to counsel, all interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. The admission of statements obtained in violation of this rule constitutes a constitutional error, but a conviction may be affirmed if the error is proven to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
Facts:
- On May 2, 1975, a man wearing a nylon stocking mask and a green rain poncho robbed a neighborhood grocery store.
- The robber fled the scene and was picked up by an individual driving an older model blue pickup truck with a distinctive black tailgate.
- Police identified Wilburn Carl Boggs, Jr. as the owner of the distinctive truck and brought him in for questioning.
- An associate of Boggs, Joachim Preinesberger, admitted to police that he drove the getaway truck and identified Boggs as the robber.
- Preinesberger also helped police locate the money and clothing used in the robbery.
- While in custody over the weekend, Boggs was interrogated several times and on at least two occasions asserted his right to remain silent and requested an attorney.
- On Sunday, May 4, while being escorted back to his cell, a deputy sheriff engaged Boggs in a conversation and asked what he had done with the robbery money and clothes.
- In response to the deputy's questions, Boggs made incriminating statements, indicating he gave the clothes 'he used' to Preinesberger.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilburn Carl Boggs, Jr. was charged in Pacific County with one count of armed robbery.
- Prior to trial, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements Boggs made to a deputy sheriff.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury found Boggs guilty of armed robbery.
- The trial court entered a judgment and sentence based on the jury's verdict.
- Boggs, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate appellate court, challenging the admission of his statements.
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 questioning a suspect in custody about a crime after he has invoked his right to remain silent and requested an attorney violate his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, requiring suppression of his statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Reed, J.
Yes, questioning the suspect violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, all interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. The defendant's statements were not spontaneous but were prompted by direct questioning from the deputy sheriff after Boggs had been in custody for three days and had repeatedly asserted his Miranda rights. The police failed to 'scrupulously honor' his right to remain silent by reinitiating questioning without re-administering Miranda warnings. More significantly, by questioning Boggs after he requested an attorney and before one was provided, the police committed a clear violation of the per se rule established in Miranda. However, this constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The independent evidence of guilt—including the detailed testimony of his accomplice, corroboration from multiple eyewitnesses who described the distinctive getaway truck owned by Boggs, and the matching description of the robber's attire—was overwhelming. Therefore, the admission of the improperly obtained statements did not contribute to the verdict.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the application of the harmless error doctrine to a clear violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda. It establishes that even when law enforcement obtains a statement in direct contravention of a suspect's invoked right to counsel, the resulting conviction will not be overturned if the prosecution can show the error was 'harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' This precedent underscores that a constitutional violation at trial does not lead to automatic reversal; the appellate court weighs the impact of the error against the strength of the remaining, legally obtained evidence. It reinforces the high threshold for reversing a conviction based on trial error, even one of constitutional magnitude.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Boggs