Court Opinion

ID: 9548868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:09:56.333726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:32.273657
License: Public Domain

SCHWAB, C. J.,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, but wish to make it clear that I do so with the understanding that all we are here holding is: (1) the only reasonable interpretation that can be given to the conversation between defendant and police prior to defendant’s statements concerning the crime was that he understood his right to have an attorney present and wanted one to be present; (2) that if defendant had in fact made it clear that he had no objection to answering questions, but merely was not going to sign anything without counsel’s being present there would have been nothing wrong with continuing the questioning; and (8) if defendant had asked for the presence of a lawyer after he had answered some questions, such event would not automatically result in suppresion of the questions asked and the answers given prior to that time.