Case ID: so2d_375/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EMBRY, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte Bryan FLOYD. In re Bryan Floyd v. State.
    78-254.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Sept. 21, 1979.
    John Mark McDaniel, of McDaniel & McDaniel, Huntsville, for Bryan Floyd.
    Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Karen Neal Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   EMBRY, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed as improvidently granted. The writ was granted to review the issue of whether a statement made by petitioner Floyd without having been given the Miranda warnings, and while in custody, was admissible as an incul-patory statement against interest, therefore did not require a predicate of voluntariness. At first glance, it appeared from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that Floyd’s statement was in response to questions of a police officer. Examination of the record to clarify this point shows that the interrogation of Floyd was by a private person (his own physician) who was neither an instrumentality of the police nor acting at their direction.

Writ quashed.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and ALMON, JJ., concur.