State v. Chittenden, 46947
| Decision Date | 12 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46947,46947 |
| Citation | 510 P.2d 152,212 Kan. 178 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Norman D. CHITTENDEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Questions reserved by the state in a criminal prosecution will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether or not error has been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the state, (following State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324, 436 P.2d 377; State v. Kopf, 211 Kan. 848, 508 P.2d 847).
2. The state reserved question whether a second Miranda-type warning should have been given is so dependent on the unique and particular facts in this case that appellate review would not aid in a correct and uniform administration of criminal law.
Lawrence P. Ireland, Asst. County Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., and Gene M. Olander, County Atty., were with him on the brief for the appellant.
Michael J. Schenk, of Marshall, Hawks, McKinney & Hendrix, Topeka, argued the cause, and J. Roger Hendrix, Topeka, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
This appeal, pursuant to K.S.A.1972 Supp. 22-3602, arises on the state reserved question whether a second Miranda-type warning of constitutional rights is required to be given to a suspect at a later stage of the investigation of a single incident. Trial court held defendant's confession at his second interview was inadmissible because Miranda warnings were not repeated.
Defendant was the only suspect in the alleged crime of taking indecent liberties with a minor, prohibited by K.S.A.1972 Supp. 21-3503. On January 16, 1972, at Topeka police headquarters, he was told his constitutional rights and questioned. He made a statement denying any part in the incident and was released without any charges filed against him. Defendant had indicated his willingness to take a polygraph examination and returned to police headquarters January 19, 1972, for the test.
The polygraph operator advised defendant the examination was not mandatory and in the event he changed his mind about submitting to it his refusal could not be used as an admission of guilt. No constitutional rights were read, or warnings given, to defendant. Before the test was begun, defendant confessed him part in the incident and was then charged with taking indecent liberties with a child. The polygraph test was not given.
After a Jackson v. Denno hearing, the trial court held the confession inadmissible because defendant had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. LaPointe
...by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the state." Glaze , 200 Kan. at 325, 436 P.2d 377 ; see also State v. Chittenden , 212 Kan. 178, 179, 510 P.2d 152 (1973) ( "The purpose of allowing appeal on questions reserved by the state is not to point out error in criminal trials, but to gi......
-
State v. Shively, 77,100.
...of the contempt ruling would entail a fact-specific analysis not appropriate for review as a question reserved. See State v. Chittenden, 212 Kan. 178, 510 P.2d 152 (1973). We decline to consider the contempt The Admission of Shively's Polygraph Evidence at Trial The State argues that Shivel......
-
State v. Freeman
...trial court in rulings adverse to the State. State v. V.F.W. Post No. 3722, 215 Kan. 693, 695, 527 P.2d 1020 (1974); State v. Chittenden, 212 Kan. 178, 510 P.2d 152 (1973). No formal procedural steps are required by K.S.A. 22-3602(b) to appeal on a question reserved. All that is necessary f......
-
State v. Crozier
...trial court in rulings adverse to the state. State v. V.F.W. Post No. 3722, 215 Kan. 693, 695, 527 P.2d 1020 (1974); State v. Chittenden, 212 Kan. 178, 510 P.2d 152 (1973). No formal procedural steps are required by K.S.A.1977 Supp. 22-3602 (b) to appeal on a question reserved. All that is ......