noting that "something more than personal disagreement by a majority of members of a state court with the decision of the United States high tribunal on search and seizure is required if the persuasion of that court is not to be followed." Further observing that "the shifting winds of judicial policy and personal predilection, is not calculated to produce that kind of uniformity or harmony conducive to the logical and uniform development of constitutional law"
How later courts described this case
- noting that "something more than personal disagreement by a majority of members of a state court with the decision of the United States high tribunal on search and seizure is required if the persuasion of that court is not to be followed." Further observing that "the shifting winds of judicial policy and personal predilection, is not calculated to produce that kind of uniformity or harmony conducive to the logical and uniform development of constitutional law"
- ‘‘[t]o instruct a jury that [it is] not to consider expressions of complicity in the charged crime as evidence that the speaker in fact commit- ted the charged crime, but only for the purpose of demonstrating that he was probably lying when he denied committing the charged crime, would be to require, in the words of [Judge] Learned Hand, ‘a mental gymnastic [that] is beyond, not only [the jury’s] power, but anybody else’s’ ’’
- “[O]n what basis do[es] the majority hold that the language of our state Constitution should be construed in a different manner than the substantially identical language of the Fifth Amendment privilege as construed in Harris? What circumstance peculiar to California requires that we do so? I can think of none. The majority ha[s] suggested none.”
- “[0]n what basis do[es] the majority hold that the language of our state Constitution should be construed in a different manner than the substantially identical language of the Fifth Amendment privilege as construed in Harris? What circumstance peculiar to California requires that we do so? I can think of none. The majority ha[s] suggested none.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by People v. Samuel, 29 Cal. 3d 489 (1981)
Although the recent cases of People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101 [127 Cal.Rptr. 360, 545 P.2d 272], and People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368 [162 Cal.Rptr. 13, 605 P.2d 843], impliedly cast doubt on the vitality of the Morse rule in criminal trials, the principle applies here because of two distinguishing features of the section 1368 hearing.
The opinion
WRIGHT, C. J.
I concur. As I joined the majority in People v. Nudd (1974) 12 Cal.3d 204 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 372 , 524 P.2d 844 ], which was filed on July 31, 1974, and I now join the majority in overruling that opinion, I believe a brief explanation of my change in position on the principal issue raised in Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 1 , 91 S.Ct. 643 ] is warranted. When I signed Nudd I was motivated primarily by my abhorrence of the possibility of perjured testimony although as a long-time trial judge I well recognized that defendants in criminal actions were prone to commit a “little” perjury when their life or liberty was at stake. I, of course, did not condone such conduct. Further, I could not at that time conceive that evidence obtained in incidents such as the present flagrant violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ] and People v. Fioritto (1968) 68 Cal.2d 714 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 ] would ever be presented to a trier of fact. Miranda articulates a sound and workable exclusionary rule which is still the law of this land. I now recognize that rule is eviscerated when police officers can ignore the duty to give the warnings or, as in the instant case, violate Miranda and Fioritto requirements knowing full well that the illegally obtained statements may be admissible for impeachment purposes if a defendant elects to testify.
Moreover, as the majority opinion so convincingly sets forth, adherence to Harris and Nudd will force revival of numerous, elusive tests of voluntariness to determine if statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible or inadmissible for purposes of impeachment. A host of appellate opinions on this imprecise test would soon be spawned. Miranda eliminated the need for such inquiries and I believe that salutary effect should not be thwarted.
Finally, I find that fundamental fairness to individuals accused of the commission of a public offense demands that Harris-Nudd be rejected. Regardless of the precision of instructions limiting the trier of fact to consideration of the illegally obtained statements solely for impeachment purposes, it is simply unrealistic to believé that such statements will not *117 be considered by the trier of fact as substantive evidence of guilt. I now recognize that this manifestly prejudicial and unfair use of the illegally obtained evidence would transform Miranda into a rule of form rather than one of substance. Such a transformation should not occur in California.