Drunken Confession: When is It Admissible in Court?
In criminal cases, one of the most fundamental protections for a defendant is the Miranda warning, which guarantees your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If you choose to speak to the police after being read these rights, it’s called a waiver of your Miranda rights. But what happens if you’re under the influence of alcohol or drugs when you give that waiver? What if you are in great pain from an accident?
Can an intoxicated person truly make a knowing and voluntary decision to waive these crucial rights? Pennsylvania courts have wrestled with this question for years, establishing key parameters to determine if an impaired confession is admissible.
The Pennsylvania Test: Capacity to Know and Intend
In Pennsylvania, the core issue isn't simply whether the defendant was drinking; it's whether they had the "sufficient mental capacity" to understand what they were saying and to voluntarily intend to say it.
The fact that someone recently drank alcohol or has a hangover doesn't automatically make a confession inadmissible; it just affects the weight the court gives to the statement. The police and court must look at the specific circumstances of the defendant's condition at the time of the statement.
When the Waiver Was Held Valid (Admissible)
Pennsylvania courts have often found that a defendant was sufficiently capable of making a voluntary waiver, even with clear signs of intoxication. These cases highlight that some signs of intoxication aren't enough to prove a severely diminished mental capacity.
Signs of Intoxication, but Mental Clarity Prevails
In Commonwealth v. Ventura (2009), the police could tell the defendant was intoxicated—he had bloodshot, watery eyes and smelled of alcohol. However, the court found his waiver valid because he displayed key signs of mental capacity:
He had no slurred speech.
He had no difficulty walking.
He knew the time and place.
Most importantly, he mentioned multiple times during his statement that he didn't want to incriminate himself. The court viewed this as the most relevant fact showing he understood his rights.
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Clemons (2019), the court upheld the waiver despite the defendant having a "heavy smell of alcohol" and bloodshot eyes. The relevant facts were that he was responsive to questions and able to walk without assistance.
Intoxication Plus Injury
The court in Commonwealth v. Britcher (1989) found a waiver valid even though the defendant was in the hospital with a broken leg and a 0.14% BAC (measured 3.5 hours after a crash). Though the defendant was severely injured and intoxicated, the court indicated that the combination of intoxication and pain would only render a waiver invalid if they made the defendant "incapable of understanding the Miranda warnings".
When the Waiver Was Held Invalid (Inadmissible)
Conversely, when a defendant's condition severely compromises their ability to comprehend the situation and their rights, the waiver is deemed involuntary and any resulting confession can be suppressed (kept out of court).
Extreme Intoxication and Impairment
In Commonwealth v. Anderl (1984), the court found the waiver was vitiated (made invalid) by the defendant's intoxication, and his statements made at the police station were suppressed. The evidence of severe impairment included:
Staggering and difficulty walking; a police officer had to lean him against a car.
Speech that was "a bit incoherent and jerky".
His mental condition was characterized as "stupefied".
He had a 0.10% BAC. The level of obvious impairment was key, not just the BAC number.
Mental Illness
Intoxication isn't the only factor that can diminish mental capacity. In Commonwealth v. Cephas (1987), the court held that a defendant with a known history of schizophrenia who was exhibiting "bizarre and psychotic behavior" during the interrogation did not make a knowing confession. The defendant was yelling, kicking walls, and making delusional claims (like saying he was the then District Attorney’s son). Because he was incapable of comprehending the meaning of the Miranda warnings, his confession was not knowing and voluntary.
The Takeaway
If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges and gave a statement while intoxicated and/or suffering from a severe injury, or some other form of mental impairment, the defense team will scrutinize the evidence to determine the true extent of impairment. The question for the court will be: Did the defendant have enough of their wits about them to truly understand the Miranda warnings and voluntarily choose to speak to the police?
Facing criminal charges? We can help.
If you are facing criminal charges or are under investigation by the police, we can help. Call (215)-967-7189 or submit a form today.
