holding that this two-prong inquiry applies “whenever a defendant claims he was incapable of making a valid waiver because of a mental or psychological defect”
How later courts described this case
- holding that this two-prong inquiry applies “whenever a defendant claims he was incapable of making a valid waiver because of a mental or psychological defect”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring.
I join in Sections I and V of the opinion of my esteemed colleague, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski. I agree with the lead opinion that appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he gave his incriminating statements and that the court below properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress. I also agree that the trial court’s sentence was neither excessive nor unreasonable.
I do not find it necessary to address the alternative holdings on the suppression claim, and thus I cannot join in Sections II and III. I also offer no opinion on the propriety of the court’s directing appellant to take the witness stand at the suppression hearing. Because the court struck this testimony, any question on the propriety of this procedure is now moot. Therefore, I cannot join in Section IV.
BECK, J., joins.