Court Opinion

ID: 9684297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:52:45.595694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:54.749360
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. It fe my view that defendant’s misrepresentation of his age to the arresting officers would preclude his reliance upon Section 211.061(1), V.A.M.S., and State v. Arbeiter, 408 S.W.2d 26 (Mo.1966) during the period from the time of said misrepresentation until his actual age was discovered by the officers.
I would accordingly affirm the judgment of conviction.
PER CURIAM.
In a motion for modification of the opinion herein or for a rehearing, the State argues that the opinion uses broad language which at least arguably would apply to situations and questions not presented or briefed on this appeal. The opinion should not be so construed. This case presented the issue of whether in the circumstances disclosed by the evidence the statement obtained by the officers by interrogating appellant Wade was admissible. We have held that it was not. We have not ruled or decided issues or situations not here involved. Respondent’s motion to modify or for a rehearing is overruled.