Court Opinion

ID: 9666257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:09:05.63542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.545555
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Judge.
Appellant again urges our re-examination of Escobedo v. Illinois, supra. We *767quote from the first sentence in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Goldberg. “The critical question in this case is whether, under the circumstances, the refusal by the police to honor petitioner’s request to consult with his lawyer during the course of an interrogation constituted a denial of ‘the assistance of counsel’.” Appellant, in her testimony, did not intimate that she requested to consult with Mr. Miller or any other lawyer. Mr. Miller did not testify. Es-cobedo does not apply to the case at bar.
As to the argument, appellant concedes that appellant’s statement to the ambulance driver about the deceased’s apprehension that he was going to die like President Kennedy was admissible. He concedes that the use of the term “assassin” under the facts was not error, but does contend that the argument which likened the deceased’s death to that of our late President was erroneous. We are at a loss to see how the argument could be more injurious than the res gestae statement which appellant concedes was admissible.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this case originally, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.