People v. Roberts Book Reviews

People v. Roberts by Third Appellate District District Court Of Appeal Of California Book Summary

The contentions ably presented will be discussed under captions below. One question is whether a visit to and search of defendants apartment was made with defendants knowledgeable consent. Credible, substantial testimony by the police officers involved would have justified the jury in finding that it was. Before incriminating evidence was discovered as a result of the search defendant was questioned. These questions and the answers thereto were properly admitted at the trial. At that time defendant was a suspect but not one upon whom suspicion had focused as a prime suspect. (See People v. Dorado, 62 Cal. 2d 338, 347 [42 Cal. Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361].) He was not under arrest. As soon as incriminating evidence (money undoubtedly stolen from the victim) was found, defendant was advised of his "constitutional rights"; his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. He was not expressly informed that any statement made could be used against him, nor was he advised of his right, if indigent, to have an assigned attorney whom he could have present during the interrogation. Thus the warning given was sufficient under Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758], as interpreted in People v. Dorado, supra, but it was insufficient under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]. The Miranda rule, as a federal mandate, applies only to cases tried after its date, June 13, 1966. (Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 733 [16 L.Ed.2d 882, 892, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 1781].) This case was tried before that date. The California Supreme Court, however, has not determined whether the more exacting warning required under Miranda shall be made retroactive. This it may do under language in the Johnson decision. But under the facts of this case we need not determine whether admission into evidence of defendants extrajudicial statements was error. Defendant did not confess. His statements intended to be exculpatory were inculpatory. Error, if any, was nonprejudicial. His guilt

👋 Do you love People v. Roberts books? Please share your friends!

People v. Roberts (Third Appellate District District Court Of Appeal Of California) Book Reviews 2024

Third Appellate District District Court Of Appeal Of California - People v. Roberts Discussions & Comments

Have you read this book yet? What do you think about People v. Roberts by Third Appellate District District Court Of Appeal Of California book? Ask the bookpedia.co community a question about People v. Roberts!