Larsen v. Stiles

Full title: John Dee LARSEN, Appellant, v. Orvil STILES, Acting Warden of Idaho State…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 11, 1969

417 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1969)

Opinion

No. 22484.

July 11, 1969.

Appeal from the United States District Court, District of Idaho, Southern Division; Ray McNichols, Judge; 302 F. Supp. 1309.

Richard R. Black (argued), John R. Black, Pocatello, Ida., for the appellant.

M. Allyn Dingle, Jr. (argued), Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., Roger B. Wright, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, Ida., for appellee.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and KILKENNY, District Judge^_.

_ The Honorable John F. Kilkenny, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the order of the District Judge denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Inasmuch as appellant's state court conviction, State v. Larsen, 91 Idaho 42, 415 P.2d 685 (1966), preceded Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Miranda rule does not apply. Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966). Neither Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966), nor Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 88 S.Ct. 1152, 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968) enlarges the scope of Miranda to fit the facts here presented.

On the issue of alleged prejudicial publicity, the District Judge was on sound ground in requiring the appellant to first present this subject to the Idaho Courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.