Court Opinion

ID: 9523448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:42:19.425054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:42.314974
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE T. MORAN, specially concurring: While I concur in the court’s determination on the first issue, I do not agree with all the rationale supporting that conclusion. Just prior to opening statements to the jury, this colloquy took place between the court, defendant and his counsel, in the presence of the assistant state’s attorney: “Mr. Schirger [defendant’s counsel]: Your Honor, I have also filed a motion in this case for the production of two confessions and oral statements. Mr. McKinnie, the statements which you gave to the police were given as a voluntary act on your part; you were not forced or compelled to give these statements, were you? Mr. McKinnie: No, I wasn’t. Mr. Schirger: And you were advised prior to giving these statements of your rights to an attorney? Mr. McKinnie: Yes. Mr. Schirger: And you gave these statements to the police? Mr. McKinnie: Yes, I did. Mr. Schirger: As a voluntary act on your part? Mr. McKinnie: Yes, I did. The Court: I note there has been no motion made or hearing held on the question of suppressing these statements. I take it then that is the reason why you have not done so? Mr. Schirger: That’s right, your Honor. I have determined not to suppress the confessions and oral- statements because that would frivolous, and under those circumstances I am ready to proceed to trial.” The substance of this narrative was sufficient to dispose of the issue. This court’s further rationale in effect states that even if trial counsel had moved to suppress the statements or. had he objected to their admission, it would have been for naught. This conclusion is based, not upon evidence adduced from a motion to suppress (there was none), but from some evidence produced at trial by one side, the State. The voluntariness of the statements was not then in issue. Thus, by extending the rationale, this court is acting in the capacity of a trial court, determining from an inadequate record that the statements were voluntary when the issue properly before us is whether trial counsel was incompetent in not moving to suppress the statements. This, in my opinion, establishes bad precedent.