Minnesota v. Murphy

465 U.S. 420 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Murphy (D) was twice questioned by Minneapolis police concerning the rape and murder of a teenage girl. No charges were then brought. In 1980, in connection with a prosecution for criminal sexual conduct arising out of an unrelated incident, D pled guilty to a reduced charge of false imprisonment. He was sentenced to a prison term of 16 months, which was suspended, and three years' probation. The terms of D's probation required, among other things, that he participate in a treatment program for sexual offenders at Alpha House, report to his probation officer as directed, and be truthful with the probation officer 'in all matters.' Failure to comply with these conditions could result in his return to the sentencing court for a probation revocation hearing. In September 1981, an Alpha House counselor informed the probation officer that, during the course of treatment, D had admitted to a rape and murder in 1974. After discussions with her superior, the officer determined that the police should have this information. D met with his probation officer in her office on September 28, 1981. The officer opened the meeting by telling D about the information she had received from the Alpha House counselor and expressing her belief that this information evinced his continued need for treatment. D became angry about what he considered to be a breach of his confidences and stated that he 'felt like calling a lawyer.' D denied the false imprisonment charge, admitted that he had committed the rape and murder, and attempted to persuade the probation officer that further treatment was unnecessary because several extenuating circumstances explained the prior crimes. At the conclusion of the meeting, the officer told D that she had a duty to relay the information to the authorities and encouraged him to turn himself in. D was indicted for first-degree murder. D sought to suppress testimony concerning his confession on the ground that it was obtained in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court found that he was not 'in custody' at the time of the statement and that the confession was neither compelled nor involuntary despite the absence of warnings similar to those required by Miranda v. Arizona. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed on federal constitutional grounds. It held that D's failure to claim the privilege when he was questioned was not fatal to his claim 'because of the compulsory nature of the meeting, because D was under court order to respond truthfully to his agent's questions, and because the agent had substantial reason to believe that [Murphy's] answers were likely to be incriminating.' 'The agent should have warned D of his privilege against compelled self-incrimination before she questioned him and . . . her failure to do so, when she had already decided to report his answers to the police, bars use of [D's] confession at this trial.'