Cited by

“In order for Miranda warnings to be required there must be a custodial interrogation by the police.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 403 (1999).

For Miranda warnings to be required a defendant must be subjected to custodial interrogation by the police.

State v. Locke, 149 N.H. 1, 7 (2002) (“Given the repeated advice that he was free to leave, we conclude that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not believe that he was restrained to the degree associated with formal arrest.”); State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 404 (1999) (finding no custody, based, in part, upon fact that officers informed the defendant several times that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave at any time); State v. Johnson, 140 N.H. 573, 578 (199

In making this inquiry, we examine the totality of the circumstances, including “the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 405 (1999) (quotation omitted).

The defendant does not argue that such warnings were required, and “[t]he failure of the police to do something that was not required cannot be grounds [for] rendering] the defendant’s confession involuntary.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 406 (1999).

Although the detectives admittedly used minimization techniques and were “friendly” to the defendant, the police are not prohibited from misleading a suspect, id., and friendly police conduct does not alter the voluntariness of a defendant’s statements.

Whether a statement is voluntary is a question of fact for the trial court to determine.

Whether a statement is voluntary is a question of fact for the trial court to determine.

One such relevant factor is a defendant’s lack of remorse.

These factors include whether the sentence imposed will meet the traditional goals of sentencing — punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.

A review of the trial judge’s complete remarks reveals that he properly considered the traditional goals of sentencing — punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation — in crafting the sentence.

The trial court has wide discretion in admitting or excluding expert opinion.

Under Part I, Article 15 of our State Constitution, the State must prove that the defendant’s statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

V. The police are obligated to issue Miranda warnings when conducting a custodial interrogation.

“Custody entitling a person to Miranda protections during interrogation requires formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 403-04 (1999) (quotation omitted).

We will not overturn the trial court’s factual findings relating to custody unless they are contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Expert testimony “must be reliable to be admissible,” State v. Cressey, 137 N.H. 402, 404-05 (1993), and “the determination of whether particular expert testimony is reliable and admissible rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 406 (1999) (brackets and quotation omitted).

Our State Constitution requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s statements were made voluntarily.

Subsumed in Rule 702 is the premise that expert testimony must be reliable in order to be admissible, and “the determination of whether particular expert testimony is reliable and admissible rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hammond, 144 N.H. 401, 406, 742 A.2d 532, 537 (1999) (citation, quotation, and brackets omitted).