Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.— I find that I cannot join in the last part of the Court’s opinion wherein it deals with the admissibility of the second inculpatory statement given by appellant upon the hypothetical assumption that the first inculpatory statement was taken in violation of the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Unless I know the exact nature of such supposed violation, including the circumstances surrounding it and the type and extent of custody involved, I am simply at a loss to decide for example, whether the State by the evidence actually adduced sustained its burden of demonstrating that appellant voluntarily and intelligently relinquished his Sixth Amend*380ment right to counsel prior to making the second inculpatorystatement.
Note. — Reported at 380 N.E.2d 1236.