Legal Opinion · Dissent

Currie v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 16, 1987No. 48A04-8608-CR-254Published

1DissentRatliff, Chief Judge

I agree with the majority that Currie's interrogation by Detective Wasaluski was in violation of his Miranda rights in that the interrogation proceeded after Currie had invoked his right to counsel. Wilson v. Murray (4th Cir.1986), 806 F.2d 1232. However, I do not agree with the conclusion that such error was not harmless error.

In Sleek v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 751, our supreme court, citing Malott v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 879, said that Miranda violations are subject to harmless error analysis. The facts in this case persuade me that the Miranda violation here was harmless.

U…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Albert L. Wilson v. Edward Murray, Director of the Virginia Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
  2. Works v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Malott v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Sleek v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Meadows v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API