State v. Booher

Ohio Supreme Court
State v. Booher, 44 Ohio St. 3d 207 (Ohio 1989)
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

State v. Booher

Opinion of the Court

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I dissent, in that the issues should be discussed upon the merits and the court of appeals reversed.

Dissenting Opinion

H. Brown, J.,

dissenting. This case presents an important question of constitutional law that has never been addressed by this court, to wit: the efficacy of a Miranda warning where the acts of the interrogator contradicted the rights which the accused was told she had. I do not find the case to have been improvidently allowed. I believe we should affirm the judgment rendered by the court of appeals and that we should set forth the legal analysis by which we reach this result.

Reference

Full Case Name
The State of Ohio v. Booher
Status
Published