Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

R.I. v. Innis

Supreme Court of the United States

October 30, 1979, Argued ; May 12, 1980, Decided

No. 78-1076


 [*293]   [***302]   [**1686]  MR. JUSTICE [****6]  STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

 In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474,  [***303]  the Court held that, once a defendant in custody asks to speak with a lawyer, all interrogation must cease until a lawyer is present. The issue in this case is whether the respondent was "interrogated" in violation of the standards promulgated in the Miranda opinion.

On the night of January 12, 1975, John Mulvaney, a Providence, R. I., taxicab driver, disappeared after being dispatched to pick up a customer. His body was discovered four days later buried in a shallow grave in Coventry, R. I. He had died from a shotgun blast aimed at the back of his head.

On January 17, 1975, shortly after midnight, the Providence police received a telephone call from Gerald Aubin, also a taxicab driver, who reported that he had just been robbed by a man wielding a sawed-off shotgun. Aubin further reported that he had dropped off his assailant near Rhode Island College in a section of Providence known as Mount [****7]  Pleasant. While at the Providence police station waiting to give a statement, Aubin noticed a picture of his assailant on a bulletin board. Aubin so informed one of the police officers present. The officer prepared a photo array, and again Aubin identified a picture of the same person. That person was the respondent. Shortly thereafter, the Providence police began a search of the Mount Pleasant area.

At approximately 4:30 a. m. on the same date, Patrolman Lovell, while cruising the streets of Mount Pleasant in a patrol  [*294]  car, spotted the respondent standing in the street facing him. When Patrolman Lovell stopped his car, the respondent walked towards it. Patrolman Lovell then arrested the respondent, who was unarmed, and advised him of his so-called Miranda rights. While the two men waited in the patrol car for other police officers to arrive, Patrolman Lovell did not converse with the respondent other than to respond to the latter's request for a cigarette.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

446 U.S. 291 *; 100 S. Ct. 1682 **; 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 ***; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 94 ****



Disposition:  120 R. I.    , 391 A. 2d 1158, vacated and remanded.


interrogation, incriminating response, custody, shotgun, elicit, police officer, rights, gun, the Miranda, conversation, questioning, warnings, arrest, words, handicapped child, safeguards, wagon, reasonably likely to elicit, express questioning, susceptible, suspects, weapon, back seat, incriminating, Confessions, present case, self-incrimination, practices, subjected, remarks

Criminal Law & Procedure, Miranda Rights, Self-Incrimination Privilege, Custodial Interrogation, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, General Overview, Self-Incrimination Privilege, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Interrogation, Notice & Warning, Counsel, Right to Counsel, Evidence, Privileges, Right to Counsel During Questioning, Voluntariness