State v. Hoyle
In State v. Kennedy, 325 S.C. 295, 479 S.E.2d 838 (Ct. App. 1996), aff’d as modified, 333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998), this court said, “A suspect in custody may not be subjected to interrogation unless he is informed that: he has the right to remain silent; anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; he has a right to the presence of an attorney; if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning, if he so desires; and he has the right to terminate the interrogation at any time and not to answer any further questions.” We now hold that the italicized portion of this quotation was obiter dictum. The S.C. Supreme Court does not interpret Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to require a warning on the right to terminate an interrogation at any time and to not answer any further questions.
Enter your email address/USER ID and password in the fields above to gain access to the subscriber content on this site.
Your subscription includes one set of login credentials for your exclusive use. Security features have been integrated on this site: If someone signs in with your credentials while you are logged in, the site will automatically close your ongoing login and you will lose access at that time. To inquire about group subscriptions for your organization, contact Joann Griffin.
Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? Click Here to register.
Forgot password or User ID?