Court Opinion

ID: 9628150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:09:33.623012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:00.838090
License: Public Domain

WILKINS, Justice
(concurring in the reversal and remand):
I concur in the reversal and remand, but add these comments.
The majority opinion states that “. . . we do not . . . deal with what the ruling would be with respect to the questioned evidence if offered in a criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis added). Of course, this is not a criminal proceeding and we need not address this matter in the context of criminal law. But, it should be pointed out, to eliminate misunderstanding, that in Holman v. Cox, Utah, 598 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1979), cited by the majority opinion, this Court stated:
When a driver suspected of driving under the influence is arrested, he is at that point involved in a criminal proceeding and must be given the Miranda warning if his subsequent statements are to be admitted in a criminal proceeding against him.
In Holman we clearly stated that the Miranda warning must be given the accused if his statements are admitted against him in a criminal matter. So, it seems to me, we have dealt with this matter.
MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the views expressed in the concurring opinion of WILKINS, J.