Court Opinion

ID: 9753640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:21:27.42575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.720282
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
In Commonwealth v. Marsh, 440 Pa. 590, 271 A. 2d 481 (1970), we were confronted with the issue presented in the present case, namely, whether constitutional due process was violated at trial by the admission into evidence of incriminating statements made by the defendant during police questioning. We pointed out in Marsh that for the statements to be admissible it was necessary for the Commonwealth to first establish Marsh was given adequate warnings of his constitutional rights as mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 *47U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), and also that Marsh understood and intelligently waived these rights before the police questioning began which culminated in the challenged statements.
In Marsh the record disclosed the only warning given to the defendant concerning his right to the assistance of counsel during the police questioning was as follows: “he [Marsh] was told that he had the right to an attorney and if he could not afford one, one would be obtained for him.” 440 Pa. at 596. We ruled this warning without more failed to adequately apprise Marsh of the fact that the attorney would be provided without charge in case he was indigent, and, therefore, the trial court erred in. admitting the statements in evidence.
The writer of the instant concurring opinion also wrote the majority opinion in Marsh and since the Marsh decision has experienced grave concern as to whether the reason given in the opinion for excluding the statements was correct. I am still of the view the warnings therein were inadequate since they clearly, in themselves, were insufficient to bring home to Marsh the fact that he had the right to assistance of counsel during the police questioning. The warnings were unclear on this point and could reasonably have been interpreted by Marsh to mean that counsel would be provided at the time of trial. If Marsh did not clearly understand his right to have the assistance of counsel during the police questioning, he could not intelligently waive this important right and as to this right the record was barren with the exception of the warning given as detailed before. Unfortunately, this view was not expressed in the majority opinion. Nonetheless, error should not be compounded.1
*48In the instant case Ponton was warned as follows before the questioning began: “If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, and you want one, we will see that you have a lawyer provided to you before we ask you any questions.” Unlike Marsh, this warning was adequate to inform Ponton of his right to have counsel during the police questioning. However, the question still remains, were the warnings sufficient to inform Ponton such assistance would be provided without charge to him in the event he were indigent. Mr. Justice Pomeroy concludes the warnings given were adequate in this respect, and I agree.
It is unquestionably correct that before police questioning, the accused must be warned of his constitutional rights in understandable terms. The minority reason that in order to apprise an accused of the right under discussion, the warning must say the lawyer will be provided “free of charge.” I see no magic in these particular words and believe that to some individuals, even these words would not be understandable or sufficient to fully apprise them of their rights.
By this, I do not intend to denigrate the objectives of Miranda. But, Miranda only holds that the required warnings be given to the accused in a manner that he can understand. The critical question in this case is, were the words used such that Ponton could understand and did he responsively indicate such an understanding. I believe the record supports the conclusion of the trial court that the words were sufficiently clear for Ponton to understand his rights.
Mr. Chief Justice Jones joins in this concurring opinion.

 As Mr. .Justice Stoby, in accounting i'or Ids contradiction of one of his former opinions, said, “My own error, however, can fur*48nish. no ground for its being adopted by this Court.” United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheaton 460, 478, 6 L. Ed. 693 (1827).