Batteaste v. State
Decision Date | 04 May 1976 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 638 |
Citation | 331 So.2d 832 |
Parties | Patrick BATTEASTE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. D. Quinlivan, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Jane LeCroy Robbins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Robbery; sentence: twelve years imprisonment.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the Miranda warning given the appellant prior to his inculpatory statement to police officers was legally sufficient. The warning, which was read to the appellant, read by him and also signed by him, is as follows:
'YOUR RIGHTS
'Place Saraland P.D.
Date December 3, 1974
Start Time 4:30 P.M.
End Time 5:05 P.M.
'Before we ask you any questions, you must understand your rights.
'You have the right to remain silent.
'Anything you say can and will be used against you in Court.
'You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions and to have him with you during questioning.
'If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
'WAIVER OF RIGHTS
'SIGNED Patrick Batteaste
'WITNESS Frank Mann
'WITNESS T. Earl Uptagrafft
'WITNESS _ _
'Note: At 4:25 P.M. December 3, 1974, Patrick Batteaste called Lt. F. Mann back to his cell and stated that he wished to make a statement concerning his part in the robbery.'
A predicate was laid as to the voluntariness of the appellant's statement as well as to the Miranda warning being given to him outside the presence of the jury. The trial court ruled appellant's inculpatory statement to be admissible. In that statement, he admitted to being an accomplice to the robbery by assisting and planning the robbery and driving the get-away car although he did not personally hold the weapon on the victim and take the money.
Appellant contends the Miranda warning was defective in two areas. We quote from appellant's brief:
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, in its exact wording requires:
'In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him '. . . (I)f police propose to interrogate a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation. . . .'
The verbiage used by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda does not require the use of the words 'free of charge.' We conclude that the verbiage in the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jordan v. State, 8 Div. 291
...voluntarily, understandingly, and intelligently was correct. Twymon v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 358 So.2d 1072 (1978); Batteaste v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 331 So.2d 832 (1976); Elrod v. State, 281 Ala. 331, 202 So.2d 539 Lastly, appellant maintains that the trial court erred in admitting State's Ex......