Opinion ID: 1753558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Trial Court Err in Admitting Testimony Concerning Defendant's Admission of Age Made Without Benefit of Miranda Warnings?

Text: Here Wesley argues that the trial court should not have admitted biographical information that Officer Washington obtained from Wesley after arrest, but allegedly before Wesley received his Miranda warnings. [1] As noted in the facts, Officer Washington was allowed to testify that during questioning after arrest at University Hospital Wesley gave his birth date as 7/1/58, making him 27 at trial. There is nothing in the record indicating when or if Wesley was given his Miranda warnings. The state argues the incomplete record is fatal to Wesley's argument since the record does not support Wesley's claim that he was not given Miranda warnings and the burden of a complete record lies with Wesley as appellant. Winters v. State, 473 So.2d 452, 457 (Miss. 1985) ([A]n appellant is responsible for bringing to our attention and presenting to this court a record of trial proceedings to undergird his assignments of error.) The trial court made no findings that Miranda warnings were given. The lack of findings could be important if we were to find that the officer interrogated Wesley. We agree, however, that Officer Washington's questioning did not amount to impermissible interrogation. It is clear the trial court found that Wesley's statement of his birth date was elicited during routine booking-type questioning. The state relies on Upshaw v. State, 350 So.2d 1358 (Miss. 1977), where the court dealt with an analogous factual setting. In Upshaw the defendant on trial for rape of a female child under the age of 12 had given his age to police officers during booking. This information was introduced at trial. Though in Upshaw the defendant was given Miranda warnings, the Court found the argument against admission to be without merit for two reasons: (1) defendant was advised of his constitutional rights before data was secured from him, and (2) Miranda warnings do not apply to biographical data elicited from an accused for the purpose of booking the accused. Appellant relies on Proctor v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 241, 404 F.2d 819 (1968), but the better reasoned cases hold that the questions asked during routine bookings of suspects are usually held to be non-interrogative within the meaning of Miranda. [citations omitted]       Routine questions asked in booking a suspect relating to his name, age and place of residence are not proscribed by Miranda. 350 So.2d 1364-65. See also U.S. v. Gotchis, 803 F.2d 74 (2d Cir.1986); but compare, U.S. v. Disla, 805 F.2d 1340, 1347 (9th Cir.1986). There is nothing to indicate this routine questioning normally associated with arrest and booking was anything more than just that. This assignment of error lacks merit.