Upon this appeal, defendant claims (1) a right to be advised of an absolute constitutional right to remain silent and (2) a right to be advised of the right to counsel at the time when he was being held after arrest and prior to judicial proceedings charging him with breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit a larceny. CL 1948, § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.305).
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L ed 2d 694, 10 ALR 3d 974), held (pp 478, 479):
"When an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities
On June 20, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L ed 2d 882), held that the guidelines set forth in Miranda are available only to persons whose trials had not begun as of June 13, 1966. Fordyce was tried in circuit court for Ingham county by jury trial beginning April 20, 1964. On April 23, 1964, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
The Supreme Court of the United States stated in Johnson, supra (p 731):
"Retroactive application of Escobedo and Miranda would seriously disrupt the administration of our criminal laws. It would require the retrial or release of numerous prisoners found guilty by trustworthy evidence in conformity with previously announced
In Michigan, prior to Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 378 U.S. 478 (84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L ed 2d 977), neither of the rights contended for by defendant (to be advised of the right to remain silent and to be advised of the right to counsel) was recognized.
Fordyce was represented by legal counsel on trial and at the preliminary examination. The police officers testified he was apprehended inside a medical building when a routine inspection disclosed a breaking and entering. Following his arrest, a search of his person revealed possession of coins which Dr. B. Wayne Bingham testified came from his coin collection. The desk where the coin collection was kept had been ransacked. Fordyce's typed and signed statement contains the following questions and answers:
"Q. Do you realize that this statement you are about to give must be given voluntarily without having received any threats or promises from anyone?
"Q. Do you understand that the statement may be used against you in any action that may follow?
Fordyce was found guilty by trustworthy evidence in accordance with previously established constitutional standards. Since his case does not come within the rules announced in Miranda, and his confession is not otherwise claimed to be an involuntary one, there is no need to remand for determination
T.M. KAVANAGH, C.J., and KELLY, BLACK, SOURIS, SMITH, O'HARA, and ADAMS, JJ., concurred.
DETHMERS, J., did not sit.