Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegedly Defective Miranda Warning

Text: As mentioned earlier, before questioning defendant on November 30, 1984, Sergeant Stoner advised defendant of his Miranda rights by reading them from a form. The full text of one of the rights stated: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, free of charge. (Italics added.) Stoner, however, misread this; he omitted the three italicized words, instead telling defendant: If you hire a lawyer one will be appointed to represent you before any questions free of charge. (6) Defendant contends this misreading invalidated the Miranda warnings, thus requiring suppression of the statements obtained as a result. We reject defendant's contention for several reasons. First, 15 to 20 minutes before the tape-recorded interview in which Sergeant Stoner misread the advisement, defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda by Sergeant Stoner in a manner he does not assert was inaccurate. Second, defendant indicated in writing immediately after the misadvisement that he understood his rights as set forth on an admonition card, and he signed the admonition card. With respect to the one right at issue here, the card correctly specified: If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, free of charge. Defendant does not argue misadvisement in this respect. Third, the United States Supreme Court has stressed that `the rigidity of Miranda [does not] exten[d] to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant,' and that `no talismanic incantation [is] required to satisfy its strictures.' ( Duckworth v. Eagan (1989) 492 U.S. 195, 202-203 [106 L.Ed.2d 166, 176-177, 109 S.Ct. 2875], quoting California v. Prysock (1981) 453 U.S. 355, 359 [69 L.Ed.2d 696, 701, 101 S.Ct. 2806].) Under the circumstances, the proper warnings that immediately preceded Sergeant Stoner's misreading of one of the rights adequately advised defendant of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda.