MATTER OF R P S
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-75 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN THE MATTER OF R.P.S. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone. Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Robert 5. Waller argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Olsen, Christensen and Gannett, Billings, Montana Damon L. Gannett argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: 1 Filed: jUN 2 4 19QD Decided : May 29, 1980 &Jr\l 2 4 1989 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. The S t a t e i n i t i a t e d t h i s a c t i o n on November 1 5 , 1979, by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n i n Youth C o u r t , Yellowstone County, a l l e g i n g R.P.S. was a d e l i n q u e n t by h a v i n g committed t h e c r i m e s of d e l i b e r a t e homicide and s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t consent. On November 2 6 , 1979, c o u n s e l f o r R.P.S. motion t o s u p p r e s s a c o n f e s s i o n made by R.P.S. physical evidence r e l a t e d t o t h e confession. t h e motion w a s h e l d t h e n e x t day. R.P.S. filed a and a l l A h e a r i n g on presented evidence i n s u p p o r t o f t h e motion i n c l u d i n g a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u ation. The S t a t e was g i v e n t i m e t o p r e s e n t r e b u t t a l t e s t i - mony and w a s g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o have a n i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n of R.P.S. The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d i t s r e b u t t a l t e s t i m o n y on December 1 7 , 1979. The t e s t i m o n y i n c l u d e d a p s y c h i a t r i c e v a l u a t i o n o f R.P.S. The Youth C o u r t , t h e Honorable Diane G . Barz p r e s i d i n g , s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e motion t o supp r e s s t h e c o n f e s s i o n and a l l p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e d e r i v e d as a r e s u l t of t h e c o n f e s s i o n . The c o u r t found t h e e v i d e n c e s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d b e c a u s e R.P.S. was i n c a p a b l e of making a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t w a i v e r of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o n f e s s i o n and b e c a u s e law e n f o r c e ment p e r s o n n e l had f a i l e d t o comply w i t h Montana's Youth C o u r t A c t by o b t a i n i n g a w a i v e r of r i g h t s from R.P.S.'s parents p r i o r t o t h e confession. The S t a t e b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from t h e o r d e r of t h e Youth C o u r t . On November 1 4 , 1979, R.P.S. went t o t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e a t t h e r e q u e s t of a s h e r i f f ' s o f ficer. R.P.S. was 1 8 y e a r s o l d on t h a t d a t e , having t u r n e d 1 8 on October 1 9 , 1979. The a l l e g e d o f f e n s e s c o n t a i n e d i n the petition filed in this case occurred on October 9, 1979, before R.P.S. was 18. R.P.S. arrived at the sheriff's office at about 7:OO p.m. Between 7:00 p.m. and approximately 11:30 p.m. that evening, R.P.S. was interviewed several times by sheriff's officers. He also took a polygraph examination. R.P.S. signed several waiver of rights forms and a consent form for the polygraph test during the evening. R.P.S. confessed to the crimes charged during the interview sessions. The following day he accompanied officers to the scene of the crimes and assisted them in locating several pieces of physical evidence connected with the crimes. At the direction of Yellowstone County attorney Harold Hanser, the sheriff's officers interviewing R.P.S. him as an adult. treated They did not, therefore, gain a waiver of rights form from his parents as required by the Montana Youth Court Act. See section 41-5-303, MCA. In fact, R.P.S.'s mother called the sheriff's office several times during the interview sessions. Each time officers told her she could not talk to R.P.S. Two expert witnesses testified at the suppression hearing concerning psychological evaluations they had performed of R.P.S. schizophrenic. Dr. Ned Tranel testified that R.P.S. was Dr. Tranel stated that because of his mental condition, there was a high probability that R.P.S. could not understand the abstract terms contained in the Miranda warnings or understand the consequences of making statements to the officers after being advised of his rights. Tranel was of the opinion that R.P.S. Dr. was incapable of making a knowing and intelligent waiver of his ~0n~tit~tioIlal rights at the time he allegedly did so. Dr. Bryce Hughett a l s o t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n o f R.P.S. disorder present. Dr. Hughett found no e v i d e n c e of t h o u g h t He s t a t e d t h a t R.P.S. was c a p a b l e of u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e Miranda warnings and of making a knowing and i n t e l l i g e n t w a i v e r of h i s r i g h t s a t t h e t i m e t h e o f f i c e r s i n t e r v i e w e d him. The S t a t e raises t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e Youth C o u r t err i n f i n d i n g t h a t R.P.S. was i n c a p a b l e of v o l u n t a r i l y waiving h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ? Did t h e Y o u t h C o u r t err i n s u p p r e s s i n g t h e c o n f e s - 2. s i o n and a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e c o n f e s s i o n b e c a u s e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t p e r s o n n e l d i d n o t t r e a t R.P.S. as a y o u t h and o b t a i n a w a i v e r of r i g h t s from h i s p a r e n t s ? A d d r e s s i n g t h e f i r s t i s s u e , we n o t e t h a t t h e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e r e v i e w o f a lower c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e v o l u n t a r i n e s s of a c o n f e s s i o n a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. The i s s u e of v o l u n t a r i n e s s i s l a r g e l y a f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r the t r i a l court. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment w i l l n o t b e C i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t i s c l e a r l y a g a i n s t t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e . S t a t e v . Blakney ( 1 9 7 9 ) , P.2d 1093, 1096, 36 St.Rep. (1979) , 1251. , - Mont. 605 2193, 2196; S t a t e v . Grimestad - Mont. - 598 P.2d 198, , 202, 36 St.Rep. 1245, A s w e s t a t e d i n Grimestad: ". . . t h e s t a n d a r d t o be a p p l i e d by t h e t r i a l judge on a s u p p r e s s i o n q u e s t i o n i s ' p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e ' , b u t when t h e same q u e s t i o n comes t o u s on a p p e a l t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s and t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i mony i s f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n and o u r r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supporting the D i s t r i c t Court's findings." 598 P.2d a t 203, 36 St.Rep. a t 1251. Under t h i s s t a n d a r d , w e must examine t h e r e c o r d f o r s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s decision. The e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t s t h e d e c i s i o n i s found m a i n l y i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . T r a n e l . t h a t R.P.S. Dr. Tranel t e s t i f i e d s u f f e r e d from a s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e t e c h n i c a l l y diagnosed a s schizophrenic r e a c t i o n , a c u t e u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d type. R.P.S.'s Dr. T r a n e l s t a t e d one consequence of emotional disturbance w a s a s e v e r e l y impaired a b i l i t y t o form l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n s , u n d e r s t a n d c a u s e - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and c o n c e n t r a t e . i n R.P.S.'s Dr. Tranel s a i d t h i s r e s u l t e d normal f u n c t i o n i n g b e i n g s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f a p e r s o n i n a dream. A second f e a t u r e of R.P.S.'s emotional disturbance, according t o D r . Tranel, w a s a disconnection between h i s emotion and t h e i d e a a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . example of t h i s f e a t u r e of R.P.S.'s s a i d R.P.S. A s an disorder, D r . Tranel may n o t have t h e u n p l e a s a n t f e e l i n g n o r m a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with experiencing an unpleasant event. Beyond t h e schizophrenic condition, D r . Tranel t e s t i f i e d t h a t had a low l e v e l of ego s t r e n g t h . R.P.S. t h i s meant t h a t R.P.S. stress. The d o c t o r s a i d would "come a p a r t q u i t e e a s i l y " under Based on t h i s d i a g n o s i s , D r . T r a n e l s t a t e d he d i d n o t t h i n k R.P.S. c o u l d have u n d e r s t o o d t h e Miranda warnings g i v e n t o him, e s p e c i a l l y a t t h e end of o v e r f o u r h o u r s of interrogation. There i s c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d . Hughett t e s t i f i e d t h a t R.P.S. Dr. showed no s i g n s of s c h i z o - p h r e n i a when he i n t e r v i e w e d him. Dr. Hughett a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o f one o f t h e tests a d m i n i s t e r e d by D r . T r a n e l i n d i c a t e d R.P.S. was c o n s c i o u s l y o r u n c o n s c i o u s l y a t t e m p t i n g t o make h i s m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n a p p e a r worse t h a n i t was. I n resolving t h i s c o n f l i c t i n t h e testimony, t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s s e s s e d t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . H u g h e t t a s f o l l o w s : " ~ r Hughett, through h i s testimony, f a i l e d t o . convince t h e Court t h a t t h e youth i n q u e s t i o n was n o t s u f f e r i n g from any m e n t a l d e f e c t , which would have i m p a i r e d h i s a b i l i t y t o make a n i n t e l l i g e n t , v o l u n t a r y waiver of h i s r i g h t s . " A s p o i n t e d o u t above, t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses i s f o r t h e t r i a l court. Thus, t h e f s l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s h e r e . t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n of R.P.S. mony c o n f l i c t e d . Two e x p e r t s Their testi- The t r i a l c o u r t found t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e e x p e r t who found R.P.S. c a p a b l e of v o l u n t a r i l y waiving h i s r i g h t s unconvincing and based i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e t e s t i m o n y of D r . T r a n e l s e t o u t above. testimony. W have reviewed D r . T r a n e l ' s e I t i.s v e r y thorough and d e f i n i t e l y s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R.P.S. was i n c a p a b l e o f v o l u n t a r i l y waiving his constitutional rights. Further, according t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , D r . T r a n e l ' s t e s t i m o n y i s more c r e d i b l e t h a n D r . Hughett's testimony. Dr. T r a n e l ' s testimony, t h e r e f o r e , r e p r e s e n t s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . A s such, w e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r of t h e t r i a l c o u r t s u p p r e s s i n g R.P.S.'s confession and a l l p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d as a r e s u l t of t h e conf e s s i o n b e c a u s e R.P.S. d i d n o t make a v o l u n t a r y w a i v e r of his rights. Having d e t e r m i n e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n q u e s t i o n must be s u p p r e s s e d b e c a u s e R.P.S. d i d n o t v o l u n t a r i l y waive h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , it i s unnecessary t o consider t h e second i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e . A£ f i r m e d . W e concur: Justices
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
