Opinion ID: 1848332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Impeaching Testimony

Text: After testifying, both on direct and cross-examination, to drinking beer at bars in Sioux Falls, Utsler in cross-examination was asked without objection the following questions: Q. And then you were picked up later in Madison? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you were picked up in Madison, did one of the officers ask you if you had been in Sioux Falls? A. I believe so. I don't remember for sure. Q. And did you state that you had just come from Minneapolis  A. No. Q. and had just gone around the outskirts of Sioux Falls? A. No, sir. I believe I was asked that questionI'm not positiveand I answered it. Q. But you didn't give that answer? A. I said I was coming from Sioux Falls. Q. But, you say that you didn't give this answer, that you had just come from Minneapolis and had gone around the outskirts of Sioux Falls? A. I hadn't gone around the outskirts. Q. Well, did you give that answer? That's what I'm asking you. A. No, sir. In rebuttal, over objection, a Madison police officer testified: Q. Officer Spiering, at the time you apprehended Gilbert Arizona Utsler in Madison, South Dakota on July 4, 1966, did you ask him at the scene of the apprehension if he had been in Sioux Falls? A. I did. Q. What was his answer?    A. He stated that he had went around the outskirts of Sioux Falls. Before apprehending Utsler on the streets of Madison, authorities had been alerted via radio to be on the lookout for a white Mustang with California license plates believed to be driven by a party involved in an armed robbery at Sioux Falls. The Miranda [3] warnings were not given before the police officer asked the questions, supra, and it is now contended the receipt of Spiering's testimony violated Utsler's constitutional rights. We see nothing in the questioning which we feel amounted to an in-custody interrogation calling for Miranda warnings. This applies whether it be viewed as substantive evidence or as evidence admitted for impeachment purposes only. Miranda does not bar all inquiry by authorities without previous warnings. Considering the nature of the question and the time, place, and circumstances under which it was asked, we do not believe Utsler was subjected to the custodial interrogation prohibited by Miranda without prior warnings. See State v. Werlinger, S.D., 170 N.W.2d 470. In our opinion Miranda was not intended to prohibit police officers from asking suspicious persons such things as their names and recent whereabouts without fully informing them of their constitutional rights. Such has not been the generally accepted interpretation of the Miranda and Escobedo [4] decisions. See Allen v. United States, 129 U.S. App.D.C. 61, 390 F.2d 476; United States v. Gibson, 4 Cir., 392 F.2d 373; United States v. Clark, D.C., 294 F.Supp. 1108.