≡ Menu

Presentence report – Miranda-Related Safeguards

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie, “unlike the defendant in Estelle, was not entitled to Miranda warnings at his presentence interview,” ¶34. Nor was Jimmie entitled to presence of counsel, State v. Knapp, 111 Wis. 2d 380, 330 N.W.2d 242 (Ct. App. 1983), controlling, ¶35.

This discussion is arguably dicta – the court already agreed, ¶¶21-22, that these challenged statements were indeed inadmissible, under State v. Crowell, 149 Wis. 2d 859, 440 N.W.2d 352 (1989), and therefore the court didn’t need to discuss whether they might also be inadmissible under some other, distinct theory.


{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment