Court Opinion

ID: 9571418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:40.119502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:25.370786
License: Public Domain

*296Justice FRYE
concurring in result.
Having concluded that defendant was not in custody at the time he gave his statement to Chief Duke and Detective Wrenn and therefore did not have a right to have counsel present, the majority then proceeds to the question of whether defendant waived his right to counsel. I find it unnecessary to decide the question of whether defendant waived a right which he did not have. Thus, I do not join that portion of the opinion which assumes arguendo that defendant was in custody, had a right to counsel, but nevertheless waived that right.
Chief Justice ExuM and Justice MITCHELL join in this concurring opinion.