Court Opinion

ID: 9738230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:46:10.583208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.718705
License: Public Domain

ROTH, P. J.
I dissent.
I dissent solely because I believe Dorado requires reversal.
Concurrently with his arrest, appellant spontaneously confessed the crime. As the majority recite, when the balloon was removed from the little girl’s sock, appellant stated: “That’s mine, I gave it to her just before you, just as we saw you coming and told her to put it in her sock.”
*672The investigatory period had therefore passed and the accusatory stage had begun.
One and one-half hours after the arrest and the confession above recited, appellant was again interrogated at the police station. He was not advised of his right to counsel or his right to remain silent and there was no waiver, effective or otherwise, of either. On this occasion, pursuant to interrogation, appellant stated "... that he had bought a spoon of heroin a few days before the arrest. That he has used all but the three balloons. That he was going to sell the three balloons and get his money back. ’ ’
This second confession, in my opinion previously expressed in People v. Ford, 234 Cal.App.2d 480 [44 Cal.Rptr. 556], was clearly within Dorado, and should not have been introduced in evidence. Whether or not the second confession had any effect on the court (the ease was tried without a jury) as I understand Dorado, is immaterial. I would therefore reverse the judgment.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 13, 1965.