State v. Bible
| Decision Date | 02 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 1830,1830 |
| Citation | 104 Ariz. 346,452 P.2d 700 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Derewood Andrew BIBLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Darrell F. Smith, former Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Vernon B. Croaff, Public Defender, by Daniel D. Holly, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
Derewood Andrew Bible was informed against and upon trial was convicted of second degree rape in violation of A.R.S. § 13--611.
The evidence introduced at the trial established that defendant on the evening of December 24, 1966, invited four juveniles, two girls and two boys each of the age of fourteen years to his house for a party. Defendant there furnished malt liquor which was consumed by the juveniles. The complaining witness, one of the girls, consumed what was estimated as four cans. Later she had no recollection of the events described at the trial and was unable to testify as to their occurrence. However, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that defendant and the two fourteen year old boys engaged in acts of sexual intercourse with her.
Later that night after complaint had been made to the police, two officers went to defendant's home where he was placed under arrest. At or about the time he was placed under arrest, one of the officers read from a card containing this language:
Thereafter, on December 26, 1966, after again being apprished of his constitutional rights, in the presence of Police Officer John Gluhak, defendant made a full confession stating to Officer Gluhak that he had gone into a bedroom with the girl and had sexual intercourse with her.
Defendant urges that the warning above set forth does not comply with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, for the reason that it did not make clear to defendant that he had the right to cease speaking at any time and that the police could not then question further until he did consult with an attorney.
In Miranda the Supreme Court in referring to the rights of a defendant stated:
384 U.S. 444, 445, 86 S.Ct. 1612.
We do not take this to mean that law enforcement agencies are required to advise a person in custody in the precise language set forth. Rather, we take this to be an admonition directed to those conducting the interrogation as to what procedures must be followed under the eventualities discussed.
Defendant urges also that the warning was insufficient because it did not make clear to him that he had a right to an attorney provided at the State's expense during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peterson
...at some point in the middle; the right can be invoked at any time. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 473–74, 86 S.Ct. 1602; State v. Bible, 104 Ariz. 346, 347–48, 452 P.2d 700, 701–02 (1969). And repeated invocation is unnecessary because once a defendant has invoked the right to terminate questioning, ......
-
State v. Darling
...a sentence is within the statutory limits provided by the statute, it is not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. State v. Bible, 104 Ariz. 346, 452 P.2d 700 (1969). Further, a review of the preliminary hearing transcript and the physical injury inflicted upon the six year old child, a......
-
State v. Mitchell
...is within the statutory limits unless there is clear abuse of discretion. State v. Matthews, 104 Ariz. 421, 454 P.2d 566; State v. Bible, 104 Ariz. 346, 452 P.2d 700; State v. Horton, 101 Ariz. 229, 418 P.2d 385; State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328, 409 P.2d 35. We find no abuse of discretion by......
-
State v. Navallez
...that he may exercise these rights At any time, not just initially. We believe this question was recently answered in State v. Bible, 104 Ariz. 346, 452 P.2d 700 (1969), and defendant at oral argument conceded that Bible decided the issue against We therefore address ourselves to the next qu......