State v. Yediael Yokrawn Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114
For Backstrom: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether re-administration of Miranda warnings was necessary where the suspect had previously waived those rights following a “full and proper recitation twenty-one hours earlier.”
¶11 Based on the record presented, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress Backstrom’s statement. The trial court’s findings, which are supported by the testimony from the Miranda-Goodchild hearing, are not clearly erroneous. The record demonstrates that Backstrom was properly advised of his Miranda rights during his conversation with Andritsos on July 13th and that he agreed to waive those rights.  He then was reminded of those rights the next morning when he was brought into Carroll’s office. Backstrom himself admitted during his trial testimony that he remembered Carroll asking him if he recalled Andritsos advising him of the Miranda warnings, and that he said he did in fact recall being read his rights.
¶12 Given this factual backdrop, we now review pertinent case law of this state. In Grennier, … the court held that when Miranda rights are properly administered, it is not necessary to re-administer the Miranda warnings at a subsequent interrogation if it is undisputed that the defendant understood his rights. Grennier, 70 Wis. 2d at 213 (citing Blaszke). “It would be strange indeed for this court to hold that, where within the space of a few hours a defendant has been properly advised of his rights, a subsequent confession would be vitiated by an admonition that was somewhat less than technically perfect.” Id.
¶14 In applying the Grennier rule of law to this case, we conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that it was not necessary for Carroll to formally re-advise Backstrom of his Miranda rights. It is undisputed that Backstrom had been advised of his rights the day before, and he clearly indicated to Carroll in her office that he remembered those rights and understood those rights. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Backstrom’s constitutional rights were not violated and therefore the statement he made to Carroll was admissible.
 Backstrom’s waiver during the initial interview is significant. If he had declined to speak with Andritsos, we would need to review different case law. See State v. Turner , 136 Wis. 2d 333, 343-44, 401 N.W.2d 827 (1987).
Backstrom relied on State v. DeWeese, 582 S.E.2d 786 (W. Va. 2003), which, given the court’s rejection needn’t be discussed in any detail except to say it noted the “lack of consensus regarding when renewed Miranda warnings must be given” and cataloged decisions on both sides of the divide—worth keeping in mind that this might amount to a cert-worthy split.