Court Opinion

ID: 9530956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:38.757021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.152003
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I agree that introduction of appellant’s post-arrest statements, in which he denied knowing the victim, was not prohibited by Doyle v. Ohio, (1976) 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91. I do not believe a consideration of whether these statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, is necessary to the disposition of this issue, because appellant does not argue that Miranda rendered his statements inadmissible.
Note. — Reported at 364 N.E.2d 132.