State v. Dailey

The first question presented for our consideration is whether the warnings given to the defendant by the Guernsey County Chief Deputy Sheriff comply with the requirement of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436.

Defendant contends that Miranda requires an unequivocal statement to a suspect that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. In essence, defendant argues that the Miranda warning given him was inadequate because it failed to make reference to appointment of counsel.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that…