Court Opinion

ID: 9701083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:03:47.715098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:19.073653
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones :
With the utmost reluctance I concur in the result reached by the majority of this Court.
Clearly the statements made by Yount prior to the institution of the police “questioning” were admissible. However, once the police “questioning” began, then the warnings mandated by the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), were required to be given. In the *282absence of such warnings, the statements of Yount were inadmissible.
Under the compulsion of Miranda, and, only by reason thereof, I concur in the majority’s result.
Mr. Justice Pomeroy joins in this opinion.