Opinion ID: 2072886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: in-custody statements

Text: Carmody argues that the record does not indicate that he was properly warned of his Miranda rights prior to the giving of any statement. He does not point out where he was thereby prejudiced but only urges the Court to read the record in totality when considering the significance of the question. We have read the entire record and find that the absence of a full Miranda warning before any statements were received was caused by Carmody himself. At the scene of the accident the officer informed Carmody that he was under arrest and that he would be charged with aggravated reckless driving and DWI. Carmody stated, at that time, that he was not the driver of the automobile. There were several attempts by the officer at that time to read to Carmody the complete statement of Miranda rights. Each attempt was interrupted by Carmody, insisting that he understood his rights. We find no evidence, at this stage, of any questioning in a coercive atmosphere and no statements made by Carmody which were, in any way, prejudicial to his cause. The activities of the officers at the scene were directed, principally, to the attending of the injured. Carmody, handcuffed, was left seated alone in the patrol car during that period. Carmody was subsequently taken to the New Rockford hospital waiting room, or lobby, while the officer checked on the welfare of Eldon Hanson. It was then learned that Hanson had died and when Carmody was told about the death, he exclaimed, My God! According to the officer's testimony, Carmody stated, without being asked, that he had been the driver. After this exclamation, the complete Miranda warning was given but there was no questioning. Again, as the officers were taking Carmody, along with his brother, from the hospital for incarceration at Carrington, Carmody asked why they were taking his brotherI was driving the car. There was no objection made to the testimony of the arresting officer concerning Carmody's statements upon learning of the death of Hanson and the statements made upon leaving the hospital. Carmody states that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were violated when his admissions were introduced. We disagree. Miranda, supra, holds that the privilege against self-incrimination guarantees to the individual the right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will. 384 U.S. 460, 86 S.Ct. 1620. As was stated in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 99-100, 96 S.Ct. 321, 324, 46 L.Ed.2d 313 (1975): In the Miranda case this Court promulgated a set of safeguards to protect the there delineated constitutional rights of persons subjected to custodial police interrogation. In sum, the Court held in that case that unless law enforcement officers give certain specified warnings before questioning a person in custody, [footnote omitted] and follow certain specified procedures during the course of any subsequent interrogation, any statement made by the person in custody cannot over his objection be admitted in evidence against him as a defendant at trial, even though the statement may in fact be wholly voluntary. [Emphasis added.] Applying these principles to this case we find that the first admission by Carmody, when he learned of Hanson's death, was voluntary and there was no objection made when the evidence was introduced. The second admission, when he was concerned that his brother was also to be incarcerated, was voluntary, was made after a full Miranda warning had been given, and was not objected to when introduced into evidence.