State v. Johnson

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), is clearly inap*1260plicable here. As the majority opinion points out, the deterrent purpose of the Miranda decision is not served by suppressing the statement under the circumstances of this case, and I agree the warnings mandated by Miranda and La.Const. art. 1, § 13 (1974) were not required in this case.

Nevertheless, this court historically has protected the privilege against self-incrimination of witnesses compelled to appear and testify before grand juries. See State v. Harrell, 228 La. 434, 82 So.2d 701 (La.1955); State…