Court Opinion

ID: 9735501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:19:36.915245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:59.348085
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
It is conceded by the State and acknowledged by the majority that the appellant did not receive an advisement of his right to pauper counsel in the event he had no means to hire private counsel prior to giving his statement to Officer Cook.
In spite of the clear mandate of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602, that such advisement be given, the majority holds this statement admissible. The majority is clearly in violation of the holding in the Miranda case which is stated in the case as follows:
“To summarize, we hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence *373obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.” (Emphasis added.) 384 U. S. 478, 479.
The majority bolsters its conclusion here by a further holding that no Miranda warnings were required to be given to defendant since the statement made by him was not made during custodial interrogation. In my judgment the defendant was in custody at the time he gave the statement to Officer Cook and Miranda applies. My conclusion is based upon the following evidence:
1. The defendant had been placed under arrest on a charge of pre-murder by Officer Cook.
2. The defendant was in the physical custody of Officers Cook and Paulsen.
3. Officer Cook administered the faulty Miranda warning to the defendant before this statement was made.
This is a typical case of a custodial interrogation preceded by an incomplete Miranda warning.
The majority seems to adopt the position that Officer Cook had no duty to advise the defendant of his right to pauper counsel, since the defendant failed to claim that “he was in fact unable to obtain counsel” or to make an indication “that he wanted counsel in any event.” This position is likewise at odds with the Miranda holding quoted above. The duty to administer the advisement of the right to pauper counsel is not made contingent upon, or does not arise upon, the claim of the defendant that he is indigent or that he wants counsel. It must be given as part of a set óf rules of procedure, in- order to assure us all that the right to counsel is not being denied to those who are impoverished. The majority, in its position, asks that the non-indigency of the defendant be presumed from his failure to claim that he was indigent. That the Miranda rule provides the better assurance that an impoverished accused has not been taken advantage of, there is no doubt in my mind.
*374I would remand for a new trial.
Jackson, J., concurs.
Note.—Reported in 264 N. E. 2d 618.