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.
Tagged with: Constitutional Criminal Practice DUI Miranda Warnings
Read More »