Legal Opinion

Roney v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1969No. State 14, 15PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

Applicability of Miranda

The objection made by defense counsel was that the admission should have been excluded because the defendant was in custody and was subject to interrogation and that, as a consequence, the exclusionary rule of Miranda applied to all statements elicited prior to the Miranda warnings. We do not agree that Miranda controls this situation.

The trial judge specifically found that the admission was not in response to interrogation and that the defendant was free to leave. In view of the record, this appears to be an unquestionably correct decision. There was no evidence to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Johnson v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. State Ex Rel. Goodchild v. BurkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Lock v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

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

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. State v. BergenthalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  2. State v. ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. WedgeworthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. McAdoo v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Norwood v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976

44 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