State v. Johnson ( 1982 )

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice

(concurring specially).

If the record were clear that the officers continued to interrogate Johnson after he had expressed his desire to consult with an attorney, I would join in Justice Fosheim’s dissent. As it is, however, the record indicates that Johnson made his incriminating statements before he made the statement about wanting to consult with an attorney. Accordingly, there appears to have been no violation of the rule in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), and therefore I join in the majority opinion.