Court Opinion

ID: 9742017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:26.712379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.830001
License: Public Domain

ROBERT W. HANSEN, J.
(concurring). The writer agrees as to the failure here to fully comply with what the United States Supreme Court mandated in Miranda v. Arizona.1 However, it is to be noted that subsequent to Miranda the United States Supreme Court, in Harris v. New York, made clear that a Miranda-less confession is not to be “barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.”2
Under the Harris decision, a voluntary and uncoerced confession that does not meet the Miranda requirements is only “made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief.”3 If the defendant takes the witness stand to testify in his own behalf, under Harris, any conflict between what he states from the witness stand and what he earlier told police in a voluntary but Miranda-less statement may “be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.”4 In the case before us, *375it should be added that the suppression of defendant’s confession for failure to comply with the Miranda rule is limited by Harris to the use of such confession by the prosecution in its case in chief.

 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

 401 U.S. 222,224 (1971).

 Id. at 225.

 Id. at 226. Cf., Sanford v. State, 76 Wis.2d 72, 250 N.W.2d 348 (1977) (Page 10 of opinion, handed down on February 17, 1977.) *375(Incriminating statement, ordinarily inadmissible because made when a juvenile, admitted for impeachment purposes.)