Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Wright

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 8, 1988No. 78396, (Calendar No. 1)Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoyle, J.

i

We are asked to decide in this case whether one who has been convicted of a crime and is remanded to undergo a psychiatric examination as part of the presentence investigation must be given Miranda1 warnings under the rule announced in Estelle v Smith, 451 US 454; 101 S Ct 1866; 68 L Ed 2d 359 (1981). While not included in this Court’s order granting leave to appeal, we are also asked to decide whether defendant possessed a Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel during the presentence psychiatric examination. The majority concludes that while the Fifth Amendment privilege against…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Michigan v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966

23 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