
    The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Booher, Appellee.
    [Cite as State v. Booher (1989), 44 Ohio St. 3d 601.]
    (No. 88-1955
    Submitted May 17, 1989
    Decided July 5, 1989.)
    
      Peter R. Seibel, prosecuting attorney, for appellant.
    
      James R. Hodge, for appellee.
    Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur.
    Holmes and H. Brown, JJ., separately dissent.
   Holmes, J.,

dissenting. I dissent, in that the issues should be discussed upon the merits and the court of appeals reversed.

H. Brown, J.,

dissenting. This case presents an important question of constitutional law that has never been addressed by this court, to wit: the efficacy of a Miranda warning where the acts of the interrogator contradicted the rights which the accused was told she had. I do not find the case to have been improvidently allowed. I believe we should affirm the judgment rendered by the court of appeals and that we should set forth the legal analysis by which we reach this result.  