Court Opinion

ID: 9657578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:30:43.493362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.555424
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(concurring). While I agree with the majority I would go one step further. I would extend Goodchild 1 to provide for a pretrial hearing on whether exculpatory statements such as those made in the instant case were made under circumstances which meet the tests not only of Goodchild but of Miranda.2 In the interest of better administration of criminal justice I think it would be an improvement for the trial court sitting alone to decide any objection on Miranda grounds in such a pretrial proceeding.
Following such a hearing the court’s findings would have to be made beyond a reasonable doubt and the state would have that burden of proving compliance with Miranda or a waiver of those requirements. The determination would be subject to the same standard of review by this court as are rulings on the admissibility of confessions challenged as involuntary.3
*137Just as confessions questioned as being involuntary, or evidence seized in what is contended to be an illegal search and seizure, may be challenged in a pretrial proceeding so should confessions, admissions, or exculpatory statements argued as being delivered or taken down without compliance with Miranda.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Hallows joins in this opinion.

 State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke (1965), 27 Wis. 2d 244, 133 N. W. 2d 753.

 Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 86 Sup. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694.

 McKinley v. State (1967), 37 Wis. 2d 26, 36, 154 N. W. 2d 344, and cases cited therein.