Opinion ID: 1162149
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: iiimartinez

Text: The court granted the motion of Martinez to suppress his grand jury testimony, but denied the motion as it related to statements made to law enforcement officers prior to the grand jury session of January 3, 1974. Clearly, the statements given to the officers were voluntary after several full and complete Miranda advisements, and they were therefore not subject to suppression. On the other hand, when Martinez was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury, the evidence clearly established without dispute that he was a putative focused-on suspect, even though uncharged. He had been advised by the county court that he was being held on murder, robbery, and conspiracy charges. It was therefore incumbent that he be specifically advised of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination before being compelled to testify before the grand jury. People v. Spencer, supra . The suppression of his grand jury testimony was properly ordered by the trial court. Accordingly, the suppression rulings of the district court are affirmed. PRINGLE, C. J., does not participate.