California v. Prysock, A-834
Decision Date | 24 April 1981 |
Docket Number | No. A-834,A-834 |
Parties | State of CALIFORNIA, Applicant, v. Randall James PRYSOCK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Applicant, the State of California (hereafter State), seeks a stay of the judgment of the California Court of Appeal (Fifth Appellate District) in this case after the Supreme Court of California denied the State's petition for hearing on March 17, 1981, with Justices Mosk and Richardson expressing the view that the petition should be granted. Because it appeared to be common ground between the Court of Appeal which ruled against the State, the State, and other courts which have spoken to the question of the applicability of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), that its precision was one of its great virtues, I entered a temporary stay of the order of the Court of Appeal in view of the strict California speedy-trial requirements in order that I might consider in more detail the application, the response, and the decided cases on the issue.
The facts may be briefly stated. The victim was brutally murdered on January 30, 1978. She was struck with a wooden dowel, bludgeoned with a fireplace poker, stabbed with an ice pick, and finally strangled with a telephone cord. On the evening of the murder respondent, a minor, was arrested along with a codefendant. He was brought to a substation of the Tulare County Sheriff's Department and advised of his Miranda rights. He declined to talk and, since he was a minor, his parents were notified. Respondent's parents arrived, and after meeting with them respondent decided to answer police questions. An officer questioned respondent, on tape, with respondent's parents present. Respondent was advised of his constitutional rights. The tape reflects the following warnings regarding the right to counsel:
Respondent thereafter made incriminating statements which were admitted at trial. He was convicted of first-degree murder with two special circumstances of torture and robbery, robbery, burglary, auto theft, destruction of evidence, and escape from a juvenile camp. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that respondent was not properly advised of his right to the services of a free attorney before and during interrogation. Although respondent was informed that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before you are questioned, have him present while you are being questioned, and all during the questioning," and "the right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself," the Court of Appeal ruled that these warnings were inadequate because respondent was not informed of his right to have an attorney appointed before further questioning.
The Court of Appeal stated:
App. A to Application 7.
The Court of Appeal went on to quote from a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc in Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870, 873-874, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 161, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980), to the following effect:
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Gonzalez-Seda, Criminal No. 15–440 (FAB)
...ritualistic formalism requirement, as long as the substance of the rights involved is adequately conveyed. California v. Prysock , 451 U.S. 1301, 101 S.Ct. 1773, 68 L.Ed.2d 185 (1981). Even an unsigned statement goes to its weight and credibility not to its admissibility when it is proven t......
-
People v. Walsh
...grounds, when the underlying statement, admission or confession, may be otherwise reliable and voluntary. (California v. Prysock, 451 U.S. 1301, 101 S.Ct. 1773, 68 L.Ed.2d 185 [1981].) In finding that the delivery of Miranda warnings here were not flawed, it may be helpful to revisit Mirand......