Lowe v. State

408 So. 2d 201, 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2565
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided December 29, 1981·No. 6 Div. 571·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BOOKOUT, Judge.

Robbery, first degree; sentence: twenty years’ imprisonment.

The appellant’s inculpatory statement was admitted into evidence over his motion to suppress and his objection that the Miranda 1 warning given him was incomplete and thus defective. The Attorney General tacitly admits error by filing the following statement with this court:

“Due to the Miranda predicate laid below, the State respectfully declines to submit a brief in the above styled case.”

The purported Miranda warning given to the appellant in the instant case did not apprise him “that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. Such omission rendered the warning defective. Marcus v. State, 50 Ala.App. 526, 280 So.2d 786, 291 Ala. 350, 280 So.2d 793 (1973); Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 219 So.2d 377 (1968). The appellant’s motion to suppress the statement should have been granted.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lowe v. State, 408 So. 2d 201, 1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2565 (Ala. Ct. App. 1981).

408 So. 2d 201 (Lowe v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Coker
575 So. 2d 43 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)
Whittle v. State
518 So. 2d 793 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1987)