rehearing">

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

MORRISON, Judge.

We have concluded that appellant’s ground of error number seven, which we did not discuss in our original opinion, calls for a reversal of this conviction.

In the absence of the jury, in order to establish the grounds for his objection to the testimony of Officer Cook, appellant’s Counsel sought on voir dire to determine if Cook was testifying about a conversation that he had had with appellant and his companions after their arrest or whether he was preparing to recount only what appellant’s two companions had said. Evidently on the theory advanced by the State that appellant had gone into the matter, the witness was permitted to testify before the jury that appellant and his two companions had told him where the stolen license plates might be found, all of this over appellant’s objection and in the absence of a showing of any warning. In so ruling, the Court was clearly in error and in the face of the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Vignera v. New York, reversed sub nomine Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1604, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

In addition to the above the Court permitted Officer Horton to testify that the three suspects (including appellant) directed him to the location where certain papers missing from the stolen car were found and that “all three admitted stealing the car”. At each juncture appellant objected and such objections were overruled.

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted: the judgment of affirmance is set aside: the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress