State v. Garrison — dissenting

Summary

The dissent would affirm the intermediate appellate judgment, concluding that the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes during police questioning in the hospital and that admitting his statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It adopted the intermediate appellate court's reasoning rather than repeating its factual and legal analysis. Justice McDonald, joined by Justice Ecker, dissented because the majority held that the hospital circumstances did not amount to Miranda custody.