Court Opinion

ID: 9574194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:13.137281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:12.838012
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
(concurring) —  I agree with the majority's conclusion that the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of his presentence investigative confession as evidence of his guilt at the second trial, but do so only on the basis that such confessions obtained in the absence of Miranda warnings are not admissible as substantive evidence in a criminal trial.3
There being no need to reach the Sixth Amendment right to counsel issue at all, I would not do so, but would rely solely on Fifth Amendment grounds in deciding the case.4
Pearson, C.J., and Brachtenbach, J., concur with Andersen, J.

 United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 934 (1973); United States v. Steele, 419 F. Supp. 1387, 1388 (W.D. Pa. 1976).

 See State v. Claborn, 95 Wn.2d 629, 632, 628 P.2d 467 (1981); State v. Anderson, 44 Wn. App. 644, 648, 723 P.2d 464, review granted, 107 Wn.2d 1013 (1986); review dismissed as moot, 109 Wn.2d 1015 (1987).