Court Opinion

ID: 9659132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:33:06.789381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:04.367839
License: Public Domain

TOMUANOVICH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the court of appeals’ decision and hold that the state had fair notice of the defense’s challenge to the adequacy of the Miranda warning given to the defendant. The majority’s unprecedented decision to reopen the omnibus hearing so that the state can have a second chance to carry its burden of proof is unwarranted.
The principle function of the warning required by the Miranda decision is to ensure that a suspect is aware of his or her constitutional rights. State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 106 (Minn.1978). Consequently, before the police may effect a custodial interrogation, they must apprise a suspect of the following:
(1) The suspect has the right to remain silent;
(2) Any statements made can and will be used against the suspect in a court of law;
(3) The suspect has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have the attorney present during questioning by police; and
(4) If the suspect is unable to afford to hire an attorney, one will be appointed for him or her without cost.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); State v. Crisler, 438 N.W.2d 670, 671 (Minn.1989). In order for statements made by a suspect during a custodial interrogation to be admissible, the state must prove that the suspect “was properly informed of [his or her] constitutional rights, has knowingly and intelligently waived the privilege against self-incrimination, and has made the statements freely and voluntarily.” State v. Andrews, 388 N.W.2d 723, 730 (Minn.1986) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. at 1628); see also State v. Fossen, 312 Minn. 414, 255 N.W.2d 357, 361 (1977) (state carries the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the requisite warnings were administered).
These warnings need not be given in the exact form set out in the Miranda decision. To satisfy constitutional scrutiny, the police merely need to “adequately and effectively” inform a suspect of his Miranda rights. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 86 S.Ct. at 1624; see also California v. Prystock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 2809, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (Miranda does not require any “talismanic incantation” to satisfy its strictures); Crisler, 438 N.W.2d at 672 (the court set out the four warnings required by Miranda and stated that if those or “their equivalent” are used, the police need not fear a later determination that the warnings were inadequate). Although the interrogating officer testified at the omnibus hearing that he read the Miranda warning to the defendant twice, the record does not disclose what the officer considered a complete and suitable Miranda warning. At most, the record indicates that the officer discussed the defendant’s right to counsel. This is not sufficient to satisfy the procedural safeguards guaranteed by Miranda.
The majority does not disagree that the state failed to carry its burden of proof; rather, the majority argues that the omnibus hearing should be reopened because the state did not have notice of the defense’s intent to challenge whether adequate warnings were given. I believe the state had notice for two reasons. First, defense counsel stated that he was challenging the taking of the statements from the defendant. This alone should have put the state on notice. Second, the Miranda decision requires that the police “adequately and effectively” inform a suspect of his or her rights. I believe this standard puts the state on notice that the adequacy of the warning is an issue in every case where a *298defendant challenges statements obtained during a custodial interrogation.
In either the civil or criminal context, when a party fails to carry its burden of proof it is improper for a court to take the remedial step of reopening a hearing to give that party another opportunity to make his or her case. I believe such a result is counterproductive to our system of justice.