Summary
In State v. Cage, 97-1837 (La. 11/14/97); 703 So.2d 1280, the supreme court addressed the issue of whether a second statement was rendered invalid based on the failure to give Miranda warnings at a preceding statement.
Summary of this case from State v. SaltzmanOpinion
No. 97-KK-1837
November 14, 1997
IN RE: State of Louisiana: — Plaintiff(s): Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 97KW-1091; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. "J" Number 388-170
Granted. The judgments below are reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. Testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress established that defendant confessed to stabbing the victim with his makeshift knife after he received his Miranda warnings. Even assuming that the detective's initial questions ranged beyond an internal prison disciplinary proceeding to the investigation of a criminal offense, that the defendant was therefore "in custody" for Miranda purposes, see Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), that the absence of Miranda warnings tainted his initial responses, and that his initial statements were of an equal inculpatory cast as his subsequent confession, the defendant's voluntary statements made after he received his Miranda warnings remain admissible at trial. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985).
HTL
PFC
WFM
CDK
JPV
CDT
JTK
JOHNSON, J. not on panel.