Opinion ID: 1379546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Detective Viduya's comment about the location of the wound.

Text: Immediately following Tolliver's response to Viduya's comment about additional guns, Viduya declared that he needed to know where on the body Schneider's wound was located: THE DEFENDANT: I am willing to share all this information with you because I have nothing to hide; however, I am not of sound mind. She was in the middle of a sentence when she accidently shot herself. I feel it was my fault, because she didn't know the gun was loaded. She said, What do you want me to  pow. I turned around and she was falling at my feet. I have nothing  THE OFFICER: I understand. You put me in a corner, because there are questions I need to ask you. When you are saying, she shot herself, I need to know where she shout [sic] herself (inaudible)  THE DEFENDANT: You wouldn't even be talking me right now (inaudible)  THE OFFICER: I need to know where, you know, the wound is on the body. (JA 49 (emphasis added).) The Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that this statement was designed to elicit information from Tolliver, and thus constituted express questioning in violation of Miranda.  Tolliver, 2004 WL 625683, at  16. We agree, and find that Tolliver's response was obtained unconstitutionally.