People v. Rankins

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 1986 No. A029505Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's post-polygraph statements, as the defendant voluntarily waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the post-test questioning was a reasonable extension of the polygraph examination.

Issues

Whether the admission of statements made by the defendant after a polygraph examination violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Whether the post-polygraph questioning violated a stipulation between defense counsel and the prosecution.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“appellant made a voluntary and knowing relinquishment of his Sixth Amendment right to have counsel present at the questioning immediately following the polygraph test.”

“the questioning which took place immediately after the machine was turned off was part of the polygraph test that appellant had agreed to take.”

“it is therefore the conclusion of this court that the trial court did not err in ruling that the statements made by appellant after the machine was turned off were admissible.”

Opinion

WHITE, P. J.

Defendant and appellant appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court of San Francisco County entered after a jury found him guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b) (lewd act upon a child under 14 years by force), a violation of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (c) (forcible oral copulation), a violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (2) (forcible rape), and a violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 261 (attempted rape). Appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting appellant’s pretrial statement because it was taken in violation of an agreement between the defense counsel (O’Connor) and the deputy district attorney (Eto).

For the purpose of resolving the issue presented in this case, it is not necessary to set out the facts surrounding the convictions.

Upon his surrendering to the police on June 22, 1983, appellant was advised of his

Miranda

rights and waived them and gave a statement which essentially denied the facts which led to the charges. Before trial it was agreed between defense counsel and the deputy district attorney that appellant would voluntarily submit to a polygraph examination. The deputy district attorney suggested the test (apparently not for the purposes of using it as evidence), but to satisfy in her own mind as to whether or not to proceed

[1165]

with the case. In other words, if appellant passed the test, the prosecution would consider dismissing the case. Defense counsel stated that it was “stipulated in advance that no statements or questioning would take place of the defendant outside the operation of the polygraph test itself, ...”

Before appellant was given the test, he was given his

Miranda

rights which he waived by signing a consent form. After the test was conducted, appellant was asked to explain what appeared to the technician to be untruthful statements. Prior to trial appellant made a motion to exclude the statements he made to the officer conducting the test when the officer asked appellant to explain what appeared to be untruthful statements. The trial court denied the motion.

People v. Rankins

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief