Opinion ID: 1724578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure of Police to Advise of Constitutional Rights.

Text: At the trial police officers testified with respect to what defendant had told them when they questioned him. The only damaging answer given by defendant was his denial at first that he had any knowledge of the cashing of the check. His other answers to questions given after arrest were entirely consistent with his testimony given at trial. No confession or admission of guilt was made by defendant. Defendant contends that it was a denial of due process for the police to have questioned him without first advising him of his right to remain silent and that he was entitled to have counsel. This court has never adopted a hard-and-fast rule that an accused must be informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself before he can be interrogated by law-enforcement officers. [2] We, however, in State v. Bronston [3] commended the practice of law-enforcement officers informing arrested persons accused of crime of their constitutional right to remain silent before questioning them. This recommendation was reiterated in Holt v. State [4] accompanied by the statement, . . . that failure to do so will not render the product of the interrogation inadmissible unless it appears that the defendant by reason of his education, intelligence, or other circumstances has been imposed upon. In the instant case defendant was thirty-one years of age, his education had extended into the tenth grade, and he had three years' experience serving in the air force. He had a prior criminal record which undoubtedly apprised him of his right not to answer questions put to him by the police. This is manifested by his refusal to answer certain questions. Under the totality of circumstances test we find no denial of due process in the failure of the police to have advised him of his right to remain silent before they interrogated him. The failure of the police to have informed him of right to counsel presents an Escobedo Case [5] problem. In the recent case of Neuenfeldt v. State [6] we adhered to our prior position that we would not extend Escobedo beyond its own peculiar facts. [7] As we noted by footnote in Neuenfeldt, the United States supreme court recently accepted jurisdiction in four cases raising Escobedo problems. We decline to anticipate what guiding principles will ultimately be announced by that court in those cases. Therefore, we find no denial of constitutional rights predicated upon failure of the police to say anything about right to counsel prior to questioning defendant.