Title: Square v. State
Citation: 219 So. 2d 377
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 14, 1968

219 So. 2d 377 (1968)
Freddie Eugene SQUARE, Jr.
v.
STATE of Alabama.
1 Div. 461.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 14, 1968.
Rehearing Denied February 6, 1969.
Second Rehearing Denied March 6, 1969.
Gordon B. Kahn and Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
COLEMAN, Justice.
Under the automatic appeal statute, defendant appeals from conviction for first degree murder with sentence of death.
Counsel for defendant raise the point that the court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant's objection, an alleged confession made by defendant to police officers after he had been arrested. A police officer testified that a warning as to his constitutional rights against self-incrimination was given to defendant as follows:
"Q. What was it that was read to him in your presence?
"Q. All of that was read to him in your presence, Nocky?
"A. Twice.
"Q. Did he appear to understand it?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. Did he make a demand for an attorney?
"A. No, sir."
Defendant says the so-called warning is defective in that defendant is not advised that the state will provide a lawyer to represent and advise defendant and to be present at and prior to the questioning if defendant desires a lawyer at that time.
Defendant's point is well taken. The warning read to defendant not only does not say to defendant that the state will provide a lawyer for him prior to any questioning, but does state:
The italicized clause suggests that a lawyer will be provided only if defendant goes to court and negates the idea that a lawyer will be appointed "prior to any questioning."
The Supreme Court of the United States has said:
Recently, in Lathers v. United States, 5 Cir., 396 F.2d 524, 535, the court said:
Without further extending this opinion, we hold that the warning given to defendant in the instant case was insufficient under Miranda and the court erred in admitting the confession.
Other questions will probably not arise on another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and HARWOOD and KOHN, JJ., concur.
COLEMAN, Justice.
In brief on application for rehearing, the state cites McCants v. State, 282 Ala. 397, 211 So. 2d 877, where six justices of this court, including the writer, agreed that a confession had been admitted into evidence against a defendant without error.
In McCants, the warning given to defendant prior to his confessing was substantially the same as the warning given in the instant case and contained the following statement:
In the instant case, defendant was indigent and was represented by court-appointed counsel in the trial court and in this court. In McCants, defendant was not indigent. The opinion indicates that on August 20th, defendant's mother had told Detective Bell that she had contacted the attorney who did represent defendant, both in the trial and on appeal, and had left a fee at the attorney's office. The confession was made on August 22nd, after the warning had again been read to defendant and after he had signed the waiver when members of his family were present. His sister signed as a witness. Where defendant's family had already employed counsel to represent him, he could scarcely have been mislead by the statement that a lawyer would be appointed "if and when you go to Court." The situation is different in the instant case.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
All the Justices concur.