rights waiver in Louisiana

2012Ray McDermott & Co., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1977), this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.

1989Ray McDermott & Co., 344 So.2d 1353 (La.1977), this court recognized the Abuse of Rights doctrine.

1975In fact, proof that a defendant refused to sign a rights waiver form does not in itself render a confession involuntary, since the refusal "`* * * may indicate nothing more than a reluctance to put pen to paper under the circumstances of custody. * * * ` United States v. Devall, 462 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1972). * * *." See State v. Navarre, 302 So.2d 273 (La.1974).

1974We believe that a refusal to sign a rights waiver form "* * * may indicate nothing more than a reluctance to put pen to paper under the circumstances of custody. * * *" United States v. Devall, 462 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1972).

2020See Greenhouse v. Louisiana Dep' t of Public Safety & Corrections, 2017- 0316, p. 5 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 11/ 1/ 17), 2017WL4946864, * 2 unpublished), writ denied, 2017- 2122 ( La. 1/ 8/ 19), 259 So. 3d 1021 ; Williams, 2014- 0643 at p. 6, 180 So. 3d at 354 .

2016He also complains that the interview lasted over two hours, during |uwhich the detective repeatedly told him he was lying and refused to accept any answers that did not fit the officers’ theories, Alexander argues that under the totality of the circumstances, his statement was not free and voluntary, again citing State v. Blank, supra. The state responds that this claim is without merit because the video of the statement confirms that Alexander was advised of his rights, and he initialed and signed the rights waiver form; he had a high school diploma, some college-level education and appeared

2016He also complains that the interview lasted over two hours, during |uwhich the detective repeatedly told him he was lying and refused to accept any answers that did not fit the officers’ theories, Alexander argues that under the totality of the circumstances, his statement was not free and voluntary, again citing State v. Blank, supra. The state responds that this claim is without merit because the video of the statement confirms that Alexander was advised of his rights, and he initialed and signed the rights waiver form; he had a high school diploma, some college-level education and appeared

1991The defendant contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) when he pled guilty to an attempted armed robbery charge in 1975. 4 He argues that the rights waiver and the Boykin colloquy in the record of that case do not show that he was advised of his right to remain silent at trial.

1991The defendant contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) when he pled guilty to an attempted armed robbery charge in 1975. 4 He argues that the rights waiver and the Boykin colloquy in the record of that case do not show that he was advised of his right to remain silent at trial.

1989Citing State v. Payton, 490 So.2d 554 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986) and State v. Arrington, 455 So.2d 1284 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984), this court found adequate compli- anee with Boykin due to the defendant’s answer that his attorney had advised him of the rights listed on the waiver form.

1989Citing State v. Payton, 490 So.2d 554 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986) and State v. Arrington, 455 So.2d 1284 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984), this court found adequate compli- anee with Boykin due to the defendant’s answer that his attorney had advised him of the rights listed on the waiver form.

1988The state submits that the rights waiver form coupled with the inquiry from the trial judge and the fact that defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the plea, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of State v. Jones, 404 So.2d 1192 (La.1981).

1987State v. Anderson, 379 So.2d 735 (La. 1980). [3] At the hearing on the motion to suppress, extensive testimony as to defendant's mental condition was adduced by both the defense and the state. [4] Dr. Rhea, the defense expert, opined that because defendant's intelligence and reading levels are so low, the Miranda warnings on the rights waiver forms, even if read aloud to defendant, would probably not be comprehensible to him without additional explanation.

1986This court, citing State v. Halsell, 403 So.2d 688 (La.1981), and State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), held that the record sufficiently showed that the defendant "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination".

1986This court, citing State v. Halsell, 403 So.2d 688 (La.1981), and State v. Tucker, 405 So.2d 506 (La.1981), held that the record sufficiently showed that the defendant "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination".

1982The statements were admissible because the defendant waived his right to counsel in making them. *1121 State v. Mouton, 366 So.2d 1336 (La.1978) held statements obtained after the defendant initiated conversation with the police to be admissible.

1975In fact, proof that a defendant refused to sign a rights waiver form does not in itself render a confession involuntary, since the refusal "`* * * may indicate nothing more than a reluctance to put pen to paper under the circumstances of custody. * * * ` United States v. Devall, 462 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1972). * * *." See State v. Navarre, 302 So.2d 273 (La.1974).