State v. Pyle

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: MATTHIAS; TAFT; DUNCAN; GRAY, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for ZIMMERMAN, J. Because of the inability, 'by reason of illness,' of Justice CHARLES B. ZIMMERMAN 'to hear, consider and decide' this cause; TAFT; DUNCAN
• Citation: 249 N.E.2d 826,19 Ohio St.2d 64
• Decision Date: 09 July 1969
• Parties: , 48 O.O.2d 82 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. PYLE, Appellee. No 69-205.

Page 64

19 Ohio St.2d 64 249 N.E.2d 826, 48 O.O.2d 82 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant,
v.
PYLE, Appellee. No 69-205. Supreme Court of Ohio. July 9, 1969.

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

Page 65

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.

MATTHIAS, Judge.

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:

'Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow [249 N.E.2d 827] but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person had been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has

Page 66

a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. * * *'

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:

'The constitutional issue we decide in each of these cases is the admissibility of statements obtained from a defendant questioned while in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. In each, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and in three of them, signed statements as well which we admitted at their trials. They all thus share salient features-incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police-dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional rights. * * *'

Miranda was accompanied by...