According to case law, a suspect "does not have a basic right to be warned while stating any offense", since the duty to warn is only a tool intended to ensure that the suspect is aware of his right to remain silent before presenting his version; and even after the duty of warning was added in section 28(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Powers of Enforcement-Arrests), 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Arrests Law), the law did not establish a duty to state in the warning the section of the offense of which he is suspected (see Criminal Appeal 1382/99 Balhanis v. State of Israel [Published in Nevo] (1.11.99)).
The case law further held that there is no reason to invalidate a confession given in the framework of an interrogation in which the interrogee was warned of a lesser offense than the one in which he was eventually charged, where this was done in good faith and not with the intention of misleading him; and that the discrepancy between the offense that is the subject of the warning and the offense in the indictment can be counted among the considerations that the court considers in a minor trial, if it is determined that it is an improper means of investigation; when it is possible that a defendant will be able to succeed in a minor trial, If he persuaded the court that he did not preserve his right to remain silent, since he was misled into thinking that he would be prosecuted for a lesser offense, and that if he had known that he would be indicted for a serious offense, he would have chosen to remain silent (see Balhanis, supra, criminal appeal 10477/09 Mubarak et al. v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (April 10, 2013); and Y. Kedmi, On the Evidence, Part One, 5770-2009, p. 79, 83).
In our case, as stated, I did not get the impression that the interrogation of Defendant 2 on suspicion of drug offenses solely was done in bad faith and as part of an investigative exercise to deny him his rights. In addition, Defendant 2 was not asked in his first interrogation about the murder, and at this stage he did not even provide any incriminating details about the murder; Moreover, even during his testimony in court, he did not claim that the very warning of a lesser offense was what prompted him to give the initial confession to the commander of the Central Intelligence Unit and to confess to the interrogations that were conducted against him later, or that if he had known that he would be charged with a more serious offense, he would have maintained his right to remain silent.