State v. Pratt

The defendant’s contentions raised three issues:

1. That his wife’s testimony should not have been admitted since it involved privileged communications.

2. That the testimony of Deputies Lentz, Galley and Polansky should not have been admitted on the basis of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U. S. 436, 86 Sup. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, because defendant was not advised of his rights before he made admissions to them.

3. That the eighteen month indeterminate sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment of the Constitution of the United States and of art.…