Court Opinion

ID: 9885126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:30:51.916343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:44.158121
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the result in this case but dissent from that portion of the opinion which states: “Since the statement was not used as evidence against the defendant but was used solely for purposes of impeachment, under the ruling of Harris we need not decide whether adequate Miranda warnings were given.” For the reasons so eloquently stated by Mr. Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion in Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1, 91 S. Ct. 643, I believe that case to be erroneously decided, and this court, as we are free to do (Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730, 87 S. Ct. 788), should prohibit the use, for any purpose, of a statement taken in violation of Miranda. I concur in the result here for the reason that an examination of the record shows that the defendant was given adequate warnings by the police officers. I further point out that my failure to express my views on this matter at the time that this court decided People v. Byers, 50 Ill. 2d 210, stems not from acquiescence in what was there said but from the fact that the statements in Byers relevant to Harris are dictum.