Court Opinion

ID: 9704201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:26:39.083279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:58.385515
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Jackson, J.
I am unable to concur in the majority opinion and dissent thereto. It is my opinion that appellant was not adequately advised of his constitutional rights as specified in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 86 *478S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694. The United States Supreme Court in Miranda, stated:
“Accordingly, we hold that an individual held for interrogation must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation under the system for protecting the privilege we delineate today. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used in evidence against him, this warning is an absolute prerequisite to interrogation * * (Emphasis supplied)
Appellant was not advised that he could have an attorney present during the interrogation, therefore, he was not adequately advised of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the lower court erred in admitting into evidence appellant’s statements given to the officers during interrogation.
The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for new trial.
Note. — Reported in 260 N. E. 2d 779.