|
|
| 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases |
Public Information Home
Suspect’s Understanding of Miranda Rights May Be Inferred From Totality of Circumstances
2005-0400. State v. Lather, 2006-Ohio-4477.
Sandusky App. No. S-03-008, 2005-Ohio-668. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
O'Donnell, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-Ohio-4477.pdf
(Sept. 13, 2006) The Supreme Court of Ohio held today that when a criminal defendant has been advised of his Miranda rights but police have not directly asked if he understands and waives those rights, an understanding waiver of rights may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances.
The 7-0 decision reversed a ruling in which the 6th District Court of Appeals ordered that criminal defendant Michael Lather be given a new trial on drug-trafficking charges because statements he made while in police custody had been improperly admitted as evidence against him.
After a trial in which the Sandusky County Common Pleas Court admitted Lather's statements into evidence, he was convicted and sentenced to a seven-year prison term. Attorneys for Lather appealed his conviction, and the 6th District reversed the trial court and remanded the case for retrial. The appellate panel held that Lather's statements should have been excluded from evidence because police officers who arrested him and read him his Miranda rights failed to obtain a specific written or spoken confirmation from Lather that he: 1) understood his rights to remain silent and to consult with a court-appointed attorney prior to questioning, and 2) was intelligently and voluntarily waiving (giving up) those rights.
In today's decision, authored by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, the Supreme Court held that the 6th District's ruling went beyond established state and federal case law interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Pointing to this Court's decisions in State v. Foust (2004) and State v. Murphy (2001), Justice Lanzinger said those and other cases have held that a waiver of rights could be inferred “from the suspect's behavior, viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances” even if an express statement of understanding or waiver of rights is lacking. She noted that, the Foust court in assessing the totality of circumstances found it significant “that the suspect appeared to be mentally alert, that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the interview, and that he stated during the police interview that he had completed a GED course and had the highest score in his class.”
“Although it may not seem overly burdensome, and perhaps would be better practice, for law enforcement officers to ask specifically whether a suspect understands his or her rights, Miranda does not require it,” wrote Justice Lanzinger.
“On the day he was detained at his apartment, Lather was 26 years old. He was well educated. … Lather testified that he was familiar with the Miranda warnings. He had a criminal record and a number of contacts with law enforcement. He had been read his Miranda warnings two weeks before, had signed a form stating that he understood his rights and wished to waive them, and then had given a statement to police. On the day he was detained at his home, Lather was sober and did not ask for a further explanation or protest that he did not understand his rights. The statements that he did make were intended to exculpate him or at least lessen his culpability. From this evidence of the totality of the circumstances, the trial court could infer that a valid waiver of Lather's Miranda rights had occurred.”
Justice Lanzinger's opinion was joined by chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Maureen O'Connor. Justice Terrence O'Donnell concurred in judgment only.
Contacts
John P. Kolesar, 419.334.6222, for the
State of Ohio and Sandusky County prosecutor's office.
Michael Sandwisch, 419.734.6511, for Michael Lather.
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/ROD/newpdf/. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."