Quantcast

Tag Archives: Miranda Warnings

Criminal Practice – Confession – No Miranda Warnings – Unexpected Remark – Indecent Exposure (access required)

State v. Chandler During his search of defendant, an officer made a remark that may have elicited the incriminating statement defendant made while being escorted to his cell; nevertheless, there was no interrogation involved, Miranda warnings were not warranted, and defendant’s voluntary statement was properly admitted into evidence.

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Constitutional – Miranda Warnings – Right to Cease Questioning – DUI (access required)

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.

Read More »

Are police required to re-Mirandize for new charges? U.S. Supreme Court justices to consider issue (access required)

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court considered last week whether a jail inmate must be Mirandized before police can question him about an unrelated charge. The case, Howes v. Fields, involves Randall Fields, who was jailed on a charge of disorderly conduct when police questioned him over unrelated allegations that he had sex with a minor. After seven hours of questioning and repeatedly saying he no longer wanted to talk, the defendant admitted to two acts of sexual conduct with the minor. He was convicted on the sex charge.

Read More »

Criminal Practice – Right to Remain Silent – Miranda Warnings – Waiver – 17-Year-Old Special Education Student – Evidence – Surveillance Footage – Failure to Preserve – Grand Jury Proceedings – Prior Inconsistent Statements (access required)

State v. Moses. (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-132-10, 11 pp.) (Daniel F. Pieper, J.) Appealed from Greenville County Circuit Court. (John C. Few, J.) S.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Even though the 17-year-old special ...

Read More »