State v. Childress

In reversing the trial court’s denial of the appellee’s motion to suppress, the court of appeals relied upon Edwards v. Arizona, supra. Upon close examination, however, it is our opinion that that *219case is distinguishable, and therefore not applicable to the matter which is now before us.

In Edwards, the defendant was charged with multiple offenses and was taken into custody for^questioning. Upon being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S 436 [36 O.O.2d 237], the defendant requested the presence of counsel and the questioning ceased. On the following morning, however,…