425 U.S. 257 (1976), 74-492, Ohio v. Gallagher

Docket Nº:No. 74-492
Citation:425 U.S. 257, 96 S.Ct. 1438, 47 L.Ed.2d 722
Party Name:Ohio v. Gallagher
Case Date:April 05, 1976
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 257

425 U.S. 257 (1976)

96 S.Ct. 1438, 47 L.Ed.2d 722

Ohio

v.

Gallagher

No. 74-492

United States Supreme Court

April 5, 1976

Argued December 2, 1975

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Syllabus

The Ohio Supreme Court held that testimony relating the statements of an accused in response to questions by a parole officer in an interview in a jail is inadmissible at trial if, prior to the questioning, the parole officer failed to advise the accused of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. When, as here, it is not clear from the whole record whether the state court rested its decision upon the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or upon the Ohio Constitution, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to permit the Ohio Supreme Court to explicate whether or not its judgment relies on federal law. 38 Ohio St.2d 291, 313 N.E.2d 396, vacated and remanded.

Per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari1 to determine whether the admission in evidence of statements made by an accused in response to in-custody questioning by his parole officer violates the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

On June 21, 1972, the respondent, Terry L. Gallagher, was arrested and later charged with the armed robbery

Page 258

of a food store. On the morning following his arrest, two detectives advised respondent of his rights under Miranda and then questioned him.2

Four days later, respondent's parole officer, William Sykes, went to the jail to talk to him about the food store robbery as a possible violation of parole. Respondent refused to discuss it, but, on a return visit a week later, Gallagher gave Sykes a detailed account of his participation in the crime. It is undisputed that at no time did the parole officer advise Gallagher that he had a right to remain silent or that any statements he made would be used as evidence against him. At trial, the parole officer was called as a prosecution witness and testified, over defense objection, to the incriminating statements made to him by Gallagher.

Respondent was convicted of armed robbery in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed. 36 Ohio App.2d 29, 301 N.E.2d 888 (1973).

The Supreme Court of Ohio granted respondent's motion for leave to appeal and reversed the judgment of conviction. 38 Ohio...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP