Court Opinion

ID: 9727585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:44:02.537203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:40.420422
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The aggregate of the advice of rights, consisting of both written and verbal ad-visements, does not conform to the constitutional requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 536, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. In that case the United States Supreme Court said:
“Accordingly we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today.... This warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation. No amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead.” (Emphasis added.) 384 U.S. at 471^472, 86 S.Ct. at 1626.
Appellant was given the written advisement that he was “entitled to legal counsel present at all times.” He was told in addition that he could use the telephone at that time to contact an attorney if he wished to do so. This advisement clearly informed appellant that he had the present right to consult with a lawyer, and to do so over the telephone, but did not inform him that one of those times during which he is entitled to the presence of counsel is the ongoing process of initial interrogation. This the Miranda case expressly requires. The advisement must clearly inform a suspect that he has the right to have a lawyer present while being questioned. Cf. Franklin v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 261, 314 N.E.2d 742. These advisements fail in this regard. I vote to reverse this conviction and remand for a new trial at which the challenged statements are excluded.