State v. Pyle
Decision Date | 09 July 1969 |
Citation | 249 N.E.2d 826,19 Ohio St.2d 64 |
Parties | , 48 O.O.2d 82 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. PYLE, Appellee. No 69-205. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In Ohio, a misdemeanor or a minor offense is a crime for which a person may not be imprisoned in the penitentiary, and may not be imprisoned for more than one year. (Sections 1.05 and 1.06, Revised Code, construed and applied.)
2. The holding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, is not applicable to misdemeanors, as presently defined in Ohio.
Defendant herein was charged in Piqua Municipal Court with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of Section 4511.19, Revised Code. During the course of the trial, held before the court without a jury, certain statements made by defendant at the scene of the arrest to an officer of the State Highway Patrol were admitted into evidence over defendant's objection that they should be excluded under the holding in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The defendant was subsequently convicted.
An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals, wherein it was determined that the holding in Miranda required the exclusion of the defendant's arrest-scene statements, and the judgment of conviction was reversed. The cause was certified to this court as being in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in City of Columbus v. Hayes, 9 Ohio App.2d 38, 222 N.E.2d 829.
R. K. Wilson, Director of Law, and Robert A. Pratt, Piqua, for appellant.
Swinehart & Goater and Richard A. Goater, Piqua, for appellee.
The question presented is whether the holding of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, is applicable in misdemeanor cases.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, at page 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, at page 1612, Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the majority, summarized the holding, as follows:
* * *'
In deciding whether this holding extends to cover those persons accused of misdemeanors, as well as those persons accused of felonies under Ohio Law, we adhere to the accepted principle that any court-made rule of law must be read in relation to the facts which precipitated it.
At page 445, 86 S.Ct. at page 1612 in the opinion in Miranda, Chief Justice Warren advises:
* * *'
Miranda was accompanied by the cases of Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart. In Miranda, the defendant had been convicted of kinapping and rape, and received concurrent sentences of 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each count. In Vignera, the defendant had been convicted of first degree robbery which resulted in his being adjudged a third-felony offender, and he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years imprisonment. In Westover, the defendant had been convicted of two bank robberies and given consecutive 15-year sentences. In Stewart, the defendant had been convicted of robbery and first degree murder, and sentenced to death.
Thus, the United States Supreme Court, in Miranda, was concerned with the procedures followed by law enforcement officers in investigations in felony cases, not with the procedures adhered to by those same authorities in investigations in misdemeanor cases.
It is a fact so well known that judicial notice can be taken that the investigative procedures ordinarily followed with respect to misdemeanors by law enforcement officers differ markedly from the investigative procedures ordinarily followed with respect to felonies. No law enforcement agency possesses the physical facilities, or the manpower, to investigate and interrogate each person suspected of a misdemeanor to the degree and extent accorded each person suspected of a felony. Nor is there usually any necessity for concentrated investigation or interrogation. In the great majority of misdemeanor cases (traffic offenses), the offense has taken place in the presence of the arresting officer. Nearly all interrogation occurs, as in the instant case, at or near the scene of the infraction, not in any coercive atmosphere created by the law enforcement authorities.
At page 481, 86 S.Ct. at page 1631 in the opinion in Miranda, Chief Justice Warren continued:
* * *'
It is our belief that to place the same restraints upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berkemer v. Carty
...by the Ohio Supreme Court, which held that the rule announced in Miranda "is not applicable to misdemeanors," State v. Pyle, 19 Ohio St.2d 64, 249 N.E.2d 826 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1007 (1970), the Court of Appeals rejected respondent's argument and affirmed his conviction. State v.......
-
Agler, In re
...dissent by Justice Keating in People v. Kulis, 18 N.Y.2d 318, 274 N.Y.S.2d 873, 221 N.E.2d 541), and we are not free to decide State v. Pyle (Ohio, 249 N.E.2d 826). Moreover, I fail to grasp the reasoning which designates a standard of proof (or the right to counsel) as more constitutionall......
-
Com. v. Brennan
...173 (1972); State v. Neal, 476 S.W.2d 547, 555 (Mo.1972); State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 15-16, 268 A.2d 1 (1970); State v. Pyle, 19 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 249 N.E.2d 826 (1969). See Annot., 25 A.L.R.3d 1076 (1969). However, we do not think that the relevant decisions of the United States Supreme C......
-
Neff, In re
...with misdemeanor.' In accordance with the provisions of those sections, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the case of State v. Pyle, 19 Ohio St.2d 64, 249 N.E.2d 826, decided July 9, 1969, held '(1) In Ohio, a misdemeanor or a minor offense is a crime for which a person may not be imprisoned in......