1. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 249 N.E.2d 818 (1969) Case Brief

2. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER PURPOSE: Illustration of obiter dictum.

3. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER CAUSE OF ACTION: Aggravated assault. (Not indicated in the excerpts, he was originally indicted for “maiming.”)

4. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER FACTS: Butler made statements to police during in-custody interrogation with no Miranda warnings (before Miranda was decided), trial began two years after the Miranda. Butler testified and on cross ‑ examination made assertions of facts about the crime. A recorded statement he made after arrest was then read to him to show a prior inconsistent statement. Over objection, the court allowed the statement to be used as evidence to impeach the witness’ credibility.

5. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER ISSUE: Whether statements made to police without Miranda warnings may be introduced in cross-examination of the defendant for the purpose of impeaching credibility.

6. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER HOLDING: Yes. Chief Justice Warren’s statements in Miranda prohibiting non- Miranda statements for purpose of impeachment were dicta.

7. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER REASONING: Although Johnson v. New Jersey held that statements made to police prior to Miranda were still subject to attack under Miranda, Miranda and the other defendants consolidated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision all involved the use of confessions as direct proof of guilt, their use for impeachment was not present, hence Warren’s discussion of the exclusion on cross- examination was dictum and not binding. To disallow prior statements on cross-examination would allow a defendant to contradict prior statements with impunity. The defendant may not be compelled to testify; if he does so, he takes his chances with regard to credibility.