Court Opinion

ID: 9766526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:52:10.850498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:23.592876
License: Public Domain

DIAL, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) explains the meaning of “interrogation” under Miranda. The Supreme Court said that the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. Any police practice that the officers should have known was reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from the suspect was the equivalent of express interrogation. Id. at 301, 100 S.Ct. at 1689, 64 L.Ed.2d at 308.
Here the questioning of the defendant by the officers followed by confronting him with the bloody garments was effective police action intended to and likely to elicit an incriminating response. I believe Innis requires us to hold that the statement was the result of custodial interrogation and was inadmissible under art. 38.22. Since the other evidence identifying the defendant was meagre, the oral statement was critical. This would require a reversal of the conviction under the circumstances.