Court Opinion

ID: 9561937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:19:06.985626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:29.437881
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Justice,
specially concurring.
This case is another example of the mischief created by this court’s decision in State v. Risher, supra. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Risher I concur in the result in this case. The suspension of sentence for a period of two and one-half years was in fact a designation of the offense as a felony.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
HAYS, Justice.
Appellant in his motion for rehearing has addressed one issue raised in the opinion which needs clarification. In the opinion we stated: “Appellant was not impeached *210by his silence because he did not keep silent.” We there cited Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976).
In Doyle, supra, the defendant at the time of arrest did not remain completely silent in that he said at the time of arrest:
“Q. [By defense counsel.] And you were placed under arrest at that time?
“A. [By Doyle.] Yes. I asked what for and he said—‘For the sale of marijuana.’ I told him,—I didn’t know what he was talking about.” 96 S.Ct. at 2246 n. 4.
In contrast with Doyle, supra, the appellant in this case engaged in an extensive discussion of the details of his version of the events. The defendant in Doyle did not waive his Miranda rights as his limited words comported with the idea of silence. This is not true of the appellant here.
Motion for rehearing denied.
CAMERON, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.