26 results for 'cat:"Miranda" AND cat:"Murder"'.
J. Sutton finds bodycam footage from a police officer that showed the victim of defendant's stabbing identify her as the culprit was sufficient to prove she was the perpetrator of the crime and to support her murder conviction. Meanwhile, although defendant initially requested a lawyer when she was detained, she told the police, "I'll still talk to you," and repeatedly acknowledged she was waiving her Miranda rights before her statement and interrogation; therefore, the trial court properly denied her motion to suppress. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Sutton, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1874, Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder
J. Luthy finds that the trial court properly refused to suppress incriminating statements defendant made to police during an interrogation about a murder. Police gave him a Miranda warning at the outset and were not required to give another warning after a five-hour break, and the physical evidence was so overwhelming that suppression would not have changed the guilty verdict. Also, no evidence showed that defendant's son faced imminent harm that would justify self defense, or that defendant's delusions of risk related to any imminent danger. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Luthy, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 20210849-CA, Categories: miranda, murder, Self Defense
J. Cole finds that the lower court improperly convicted and sentenced defendant of capital murder for the alleged shooting death of a gas station clerk during the course of robbery. Specifically, the state “directly commented” on defendant’s right not to testify, which requires reversal. The state’s comments regarding “the missing gun” occurred during its rebuttal closing argument, and the lower court failed to remedy the prejudice. Reversed.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Cole, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-20-0727, Categories: Criminal Procedure, miranda, murder
J. Grosshans finds that the court of appeal improperly ruled for defendant in his appeal from his murder convictions because Miranda violations did not occur when the officer failed to re-advise defendant of his Miranda rights after defendant initiated voluntary communication. Reversed.
Court: Florida Supreme Court, Judge: Grosshans, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: SC2022-0458, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Kinsley finds the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police after he was pulled over. The arresting officer ordered defendant out of his vehicle, made several commands, accused him of several crimes, and questioned him for more than 44 minutes, all of which would have led defendant to believe he was in custody at the time of the questioning and required the officer to read him his Miranda rights. Additionally, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of defendant's actions in Georgia before the victim was found dead in her home. The evidence was used only to establish intent - which was never challenged by defendant - and, therefore, it was "other acts" evidence that should have been excluded. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Kinsley, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1604, Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Boatright finds the trial court erroneously granted defendant's motion to suppress during his first-degree murder case. His questioning by police shortly before his arrest occurred on a public roadway and did not involve commands or restraint; therefore, defendant was not in police custody at the time and the officers were not required to read him his Miranda rights beforehand. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Boatright, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 2024CO18, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Robinson finds the overwhelming amount of evidence presented in defendant's trial on robbery and murder charges, including surveillance footage from the convenient store and testimony from a co-conspirator corroborated by independent witnesses, rendered any error regarding admission of cell phone data harmless, especially considering an unsent text message on the phone was mentioned only in passing by the prosecution. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: SC20575, Categories: Constitution, miranda, murder
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of weapons and murder charges after a fatal shooting outside a restaurant. Evidence shows investigators informed defendant he was under arrest related to a murder and that defendant understood his Miranda rights. Further, defendant failed to preserve certain arguments, and the jury gave the evidence presented its proper weight. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: KA 17-00196, Categories: miranda, murder, Weapons
[Modified.] J. Grimes deletes one footnote with no change in judgment. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a firearm, ammunition and methamphetamine that police found in his car during a Utah traffic stop, as well as statements he made to an undercover officer in jail. The traffic stop was not unduly prolonged and he consented to the search. Voluntary statements to the officer posing as a fellow inmate came after he invoked his Miranda rights but were not made in a coercive atmosphere dominated by police. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Grimes, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: B317938, Categories: miranda, murder, Search
J. Grimes finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a firearm, ammunition and methamphetamine that police found in his car during a Utah traffic stop, as well as statements he made to an undercover officer in jail. The traffic stop was not unduly prolonged and he consented to the search. Voluntary statements to the officer posing as a fellow inmate came after he invoked his Miranda rights but were not made in a coercive atmosphere dominated by police. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Grimes, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: B317938, Categories: miranda, murder, Search
J. Grant finds that the district court improperly granted defendant habeas relief from his murder conviction based on a determination that the trial court incorrectly refused to suppress incriminating statements defendant made to a fellow suspect when police put the two men in an interrogation room together even after defendant had invoked his right to counsel. A reasonable jurist could conclude that the officer's decision to put defendant in the interrogation room with the other suspect was not a violation of defendant's Miranda rights. The officer's move was a "strategic use of a neutral situation," not a "coercive psychological ploy." Reversed.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Grant, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 22-11744, Categories: Habeas, miranda, murder
J. Clayton finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of killing his girlfriend and sentenced him to life without parole. Under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence shows defendant made a knowing waiver of his Miranda rights before his interrogation by police. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a recording from the victim's phone as defendant was not prejudiced by the admission due to the strong evidence of his guilt. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Clayton, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: ED111130, Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder
J. Stephens finds that defendant was properly convicted of second degree murder. Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to the police without being read his Miranda rights was correctly denied because he was not arrested or restrained at the time he made his statement. The evidence shows that defendant voluntarily rode in a police vehicle to the station for questioning as a witness to the crime and was not treated any differently than the other witnesses brought in to give a statement. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Stephens, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 55,315-KA, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Tow finds the trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights when it denied his motion to suppress statements made during a phone call with a detective. Although he was not read his Miranda rights, he was free to end the call at any time and expressed his willingness to return from Mexico to "pay for his acts" several times after admitting to the murder. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tow, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 2023COA105, Categories: miranda, murder, Due Process
J. Peterson finds that the trial court improperly convicted defendant of murder and incorrectly granted the state's motion to admit defendant's post-arrest statements to police into evidence. Defendant, who was 17 years old at the time, unequivocally invoked his Miranda rights by stating during the detention center booking process that he would not talk to law enforcement without an attorney. Defendant's statement was made after he was advised of his Miranda rights and after he was already subjected to some custodial interrogation on the way to the jail. A reasonable person in defendant's position would have believed an interrogation was imminent. Defendant's custodial statements to GBI agents the following day were therefore inadmissible and the state failed to show that the use of the statements as evidence was harmless. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: November 2, 2023, Case #: S23A0534, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Oden Johnson finds that the lower court improperly convicted defendant of murder and in connection with the death of a seven-year-old in a gang shooting. Defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel in this case. After repeatedly asking for an attorney for almost 24 hours, defendant "did not so much change his mind as give up." Therefore, the lower court erred in admitted defendant's confession to his gang affiliation, and the fact that the location of the shooting was in the territory of a rival gang. Reversed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Oden Johnson, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 200304, Categories: miranda, murder, Self Incrimination
J. Williamowski finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police during her initial interview because although her phone was taken away from her during the interview, the tone of the questioning remained friendly, while she was also properly read her Miranda rights before questioning about the specifics of the shooting that led to the victim's death. Meanwhile, the evidence in the record defendant was the initial aggressor when she struck the victim twice with a bat while he was sleeping, several days before she acquired a gun from a friend and shot the victim 10 times before attempting to conceal his body in the basement with a concrete barrier, all of which supported the trial court's decision to deny her request for a self-defense jury instruction. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Williamowski, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2720, Categories: miranda, murder, Self Defense
J. Lewis finds that defendant's murder and assault convictions stemming from the death of his mother were not against weight of the evidence, which included testimony he was the only other person at the home at the time of the victim's death, the family had several knives of the same brand used to stab the victim, and defendant "sang" about killing his mother when he was arrested, even though he had not been told of her death. Meanwhile, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police while in the back of a police cruiser because although he had not been read his Miranda rights, no officers spoke to him or elicited the incriminating statements, which were made spontaneously and were properly admitted. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lewis, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2700, Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder
J. Hudson finds that the murder defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of the dying declaration of the murder victim, and that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant had waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel when he began talking to police of his own volition, having had his Miranda rights repeated to him, after requesting counsel. There is also not a reasonable possibility that prior-bad-act evidence significantly affected the jury's verdict, even if it was erroneously admitted. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Hudson, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: A22-0868, Categories: Confrontation, miranda, murder
J. Smith finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress statements during hist trial on murder, assault and related charges. Claims about his age at the time of the interview, his low intelligence, and the fact he had not slept the night before do not indicate the statements were involuntary, while he was also properly read his Miranda rights before the interview. However, the state's failure to present evidence defendant left the scene of the crime with a gun or destroyed the gun at some point, coupled with law enforcement's failure to ever recover the weapon, renders defendant's tampering with evidence conviction unsupported by the evidence in the record; therefore, it must be vacated. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Smith, Filed On: July 18, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2591, Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder
J. Lucci finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress based on alleged Miranda violations during his trial on murder, assault and weapons charges. Although he told officers he "popped a dude" after they followed a blood trail into his apartment, he was not in custody at the time he answered the question, was read his Miranda rights immediately afterward, and the prosecution did not use the statement at trial. Meanwhile, the various charges on which defendant was convicted involved four separate incidents committed on various days with different weapons, all of which made the evidence of each crime separate and direct, and supported the trial court's decision to deny his motion to bifurcate. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lucci, Filed On: July 10, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2350, Categories: Criminal Procedure, miranda, murder
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of second-degree murder and theft after he tied up and killed his girlfriend. Police had not threatened or coerced defendant into making incriminating statements, and defendant failed to preserve arguments about post-Miranda admissions. As a three-time convicted felon, defendant had extensive experience with police. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 30, 2023, Case #: KA 18-02032, Categories: miranda, murder
J. LaGrua finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and theft by taking. The trial court correctly refused to suppress a statement defendant made to an investigator because the investigator had advised defendant of his Miranda rights during two prior interviews. Defendant was reminded of his rights during the third interview and voluntarily agreed to talk to the investigator and go to the location where the victim was killed. Any error the trial court committed in admitting evidence that defendant assaulted other ex-girlfriends by strangling them was harmless in light of the strong evidence of defendant's guilt. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: LaGrua, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: S23A0200, Categories: miranda, murder, Theft
J. Solomon finds that the appellate division improperly suppressed statements defendant made to police in his trial for raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl. While police originally kept defendant in a separate room before reading him his Miranda rights, they moved defendant to an interview room and administered Miranda warnings after a witness identified him as the perpetrator. Meanwhile, defendant did not appear distressed or agitated before beginning his second interview. Reversed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Solomon , Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: A-16-22, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Hood finds that the trial court properly suppressed defendant's confession to killing a man because the state failed to prove he had voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Detectives befriended defendant, a homeless teenager, before making affirmative misrepresentations that he would walk out of the police station that day and that the Miranda warning was just a formality, which, combined with the timing of the misrepresentations, made his waiver involuntary. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hood, Filed On: June 12, 2023, Case #: 22SA350, Categories: miranda, murder
J. Massing finds defendant's confession, made minutes after the murder, that he had just killed someone for "running his mouth" should have been suppressed. His confession was a product of custodial interrogation and the officer who handcuffed and frisked him did not read him his Miranda rights. Reversed.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Massing, Filed On: June 7, 2023, Case #: 21-P-916 , Categories: Evidence, miranda, murder