| 2024-0034 |
N.H. |
2026-03-17 |
So ordered
|
State v. Clegg
|
|
… milar grounds). Similar to our analysis of whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), whether exigent circumstances exist “is a law-dominated mixed question in which the crucial que …
|
| 2024-0344 |
N.H. |
2025-09-19 |
—
|
State v. Rodriguez
|
|
… the juvenile, the detective spoke with the defendant who, after being read his Miranda rights, declined to be interviewed. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1966). The detective subsequently charged the defendant with several f …
|
| 2024-0121 |
N.H. |
2025-07-01 |
—
|
Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist. v. State
|
|
… r even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Miranda v. Garland, 34 F.4th 338, 365 (4th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted); see also Jolly, 76 F.3d at 482. Accordingly, contrary to the concurrence’s conclusion …
|
| 2023-0257 |
N.H. |
2025-03-18 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Anderson Pereira
|
|
… e defendant. The investigators began the interview by reading the defendant his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant responded that he understood the rights, discussed the implications of waiving them, …
|
| 2022-0654 |
N.H. |
2024-05-03 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Albert D. Lynch
|
|
… ulting charge; and (2) the court erred in finding that he implicitly waived his Miranda rights when he agreed to speak with police. We affirm. The defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the death result …
|
| 2021-0350 |
N.H. |
2023-06-07 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Ian Boudreau
|
|
… ant’s uncontroverted statements that he made prior to his arrest and receipt of Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79 (1996), and assured the court that it would not elicit any testimony about his post-arrest statem …
|
| 2021-0394 |
N.H. |
2023-05-04 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Caleb Douglas Marquis
|
|
… he gave the statements, and, because he was not given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), those statements were obtained in violation of his right against self- incrimination. We affirm in part, reverse in pa …
|
| 2020-0063 |
N.H. |
2021-10-29 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Scott Hilliard
|
|
… took the defendant to the Tilton police station where he read the defendant his Miranda rights and lines one through six of the administrative license suspension (ALS) form, which explained the defendant’s right to refuse consent to one or …
|
| 2018-0315 |
N.H. |
2021-09-14 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Richard Moore
|
|
… in September 2016 following his arrest for the victim’s murder. He was read his Miranda rights, indicated that he understood them, and expressly waived them before the interview began. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). Almos …
|
| 2019-0680 |
N.H. |
2021-09-10 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Seth Hinkley
|
|
… free to leave at any time, for any reason. Marsh then reviewed the defendant’s Miranda rights with him, and the defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and signed a waiver of rights form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, …
|
| 2019-0322 |
N.H. |
2021-01-13 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Pouliot
|
|
… F.3d 1080, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that, after a suspect has received Miranda warnings, the suspect “may remain selectively silent by answering some questions and then refusing to answer others without taking the risk that his sil …
|
| 2019-0372 |
N.H. |
2020-06-18 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Taylor M. Kenny
|
|
… sal could be used as evidence against him in court. After being read his Miranda rights, the defendant agreed to answer questions. When asked why he was driving 59 miles an hour in a 35 mile-per- hour zone, the defendant responded th …
|
| 2018-0575 |
N.H. |
2020-04-07 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Dominic Carrier
|
|
… first set of statements, and, because he was not given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), those statements were obtained in violation of his right against self-incrimination. The court suppressed the second se …
|
| 2017-0361 |
N.H. |
2019-09-18 |
—
|
State v. Adrien Stillwell
|
|
… ther evidence. After police executed the body warrant, the defendant waived his Miranda rights and spoke with police for approximately forty-five minutes in a recorded interview. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 479 (1966). The de …
|
| 2016-0701 |
N.H. |
2019-05-10 |
—
|
State v. Katlyn Marin
|
|
… ved to suppress statements she made to the police prior to being advised of her Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 479 (1966). The defendant’s pre-Miranda statements consist of three sets of statements — given at her …
|
| 2017-0693 |
N.H. |
2019-05-10 |
—
|
State v. Jean Claude Mfataneza
|
|
… ciency with the English language. The defendant took the position that, as with Miranda warnings, a person must knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently consent to testing in order for the results to be admissible in a trial. He argued tha …
|
| 2018-0269 |
N.H. |
2019-02-01 |
—
|
In re C.O. In re G.L.
|
|
… .H. 11, 14 (2010) (the invocation of the right to remain silent after receiving Miranda warnings cannot be used as direct or impeachment evidence at trial). A TPR proceeding, however, is not a criminal proceeding, and we have not yet determ …
|
| 2017-0599 |
N.H. |
2018-11-28 |
—
|
State v. Abhishek Sachdev
|
|
… denied his motion to suppress upon finding that: (1) he was not in custody for Miranda purposes when he was questioned by detectives about the alleged assault, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and (2) his consent to search the …
|
| 2017-0375 |
N.H. |
2018-08-17 |
—
|
In re E.G.
|
|
… his motion to suppress statements given by him to the arresting officer without Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. The trial court found or the record reflects the following facts. On February 1 …
|
| 2017-0409 |
N.H. |
2018-06-05 |
—
|
State v. David Burris
|
|
… ilent.” Id. at 497. Analogizing this practice to the interrogation practices in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 464-65 (1966), the Court reasoned that the statements provided by the police officers were “infected by the coercion inherent …
|
| 2017-0104 |
N.H. |
2018-05-01 |
—
|
State v. Brian Watson
|
|
… enying his motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and (2) allowing a forensic toxicologist, Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, to testify to the results of toxic …
|
| 2016-0518 |
N.H. |
2018-04-13 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Darlene Washburn
|
|
… vehicle were the product of an unwarned custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that the searches of her vehicle, purse, and home were illegal because her consent was either the product of her un …
|
| 2016-0118 |
N.H. |
2018-01-31 |
—
|
State v. Felix Ruiz
|
|
… when it: (1) denied his motion to suppress certain evidence, including his post-Miranda confession, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and (2) denied his motion to dismiss based upon insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. I. F …
|
| 2016-0306 |
N.H. |
2017-09-19 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Daniel King
|
|
… umstances did not evidence consciousness of guilt. He states that he waived his Miranda rights and answered the interviewing officer’s questions about the incident; moreover, he asserts, the officer did not inform him that he would be arres …
|
| 2016-0271 |
N.H. |
2017-08-01 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Daniel Perez
|
|
… enying his motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), under the State and Federal Constitutions. He also argues that the Superior Court (Anderson, J.) ma …
|
| 2016-0084 |
N.H. |
2017-04-26 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Andrew Tulley
|
|
… suppressed because it resulted from a custodial interrogation in the absence of Miranda warnings, see State v. Thelusma, 167 N.H. 481, 484 (2015), or because it was the fruit of his allegedly illegal arrest, see State v. Gotsch, 143 N.H. 88 …
|
| 2015-0358 |
N.H. |
2017-03-10 |
—
|
State v. Kevin Lynch
|
|
… ion to suppress his statements to police allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He also argues that the Superior Court (Schulman, J.) erred by permitting hearsay testimony from a …
|
| 2016-0281 |
N.H. |
2017-02-15 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Charles L. Barcus
|
|
… sh inside the room. Prior to asking these questions, O’Brien did not administer Miranda warnings. Of the three detectives, only O’Brien spoke with the defendant; Fitzgerald was on the phone with a police prosecutor, and the third de …
|
| 2015-0488 |
N.H. |
2016-09-16 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Wilfred Bergeron
|
|
… ithin the confines of his small kitchen, and that they never advised him of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or obtained a written consent to seize the computer. The trial court found, however, that t …
|
| 2015-0174 |
N.H. |
2016-07-27 |
—
|
State v. Christopher Gay
|
|
… , 150 N.H. at 384-85 (determining that defendant not in custody for purposes of Miranda where only two officers spoke to him and were in his immediate vicinity). Although the officers asked the defendant to lift his shirt to demonstrate tha …
|
| 2015-0155 |
N.H. |
2016-07-12 |
—
|
State v. Dominick Stanin, Sr.
|
|
… suppress a statement that the State conceded had been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Id. at 114. The trial court ruled that the statement was inadmissible in the State’s case-in- chief, but was admissible …
|
| 2014-0631 |
N.H. |
2016-04-19 |
—
|
State v. Joseph Kuchman
|
|
… purposes of [a defendant’s] silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda warnings, violate[s] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619 (1976); see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, …
|
| 2014-0544 |
N.H. |
2015-05-21 |
—
|
Paula Herbeck & a. v. Miranda Royer; Miranda Royer & a. v. Paula Herbeck & a.
|
|
… SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0544, Paula Herbeck & a. v. Miranda Royer; Miranda Royer & a. v. Paula Herbeck & a., the court on May 21, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the brief and record su …
|
| 2014-0025 |
N.H. |
2015-05-12 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Alex Ducharme
|
|
… onsent statute applied; (3) admitted evidence obtained after he had invoked his Miranda rights and failed to consider the “confusion doctrine”; and (4) found the evidence sufficient to convict him of DUI. We affirm. The testimony at …
|
| No. 2013-828 |
N.H. |
2015-03-20 |
—
|
State v. Thelusma
|
|
… ant handed to Wedge. At the police station, Roy asked the defendant to review a Miranda rights form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant read the form and initialed it, indicating that he understood his rights, but di …
|
| 2014-0367 |
N.H. |
2015-03-13 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Patricia Pappalardo
|
|
… hes that, after she was arrested, the defendant was advised of, and waived, her Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The Miranda rights form, which the defendant signed approximately 50 minutes after her arrest, advi …
|
| No. 2013-542 |
N.H. |
2015-01-29 |
—
|
In re B.C.
|
|
… venile, B.C., to suppress a statement obtained in violation of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6 (1985). We affirm. I. Factual Background The trial court found, or the record establish …
|
| 2013-0637 |
N.H. |
2015-01-13 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Elizabeth Cloutier
|
|
… companying interview would be audio- and video- recorded and advised her of her Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant then signed a form acknowledging that she had read the enumerated rights and understo …
|
| 2013-0886 |
N.H. |
2015-01-09 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Joshua Fowler
|
|
… certain statements he made to detectives after he had invoked his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The State does not contest that the detectives interrogated the defendant while he was in custody after he had invoked …
|
| 2013-0009 |
N.H. |
2014-09-09 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Timothy McKenna
|
|
… that he was subject to a custodial interrogation without being informed of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court (Delker, J.) denied the motion. The defendant appe …
|
| 2013-0182 |
N.H. |
2014-07-08 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Stephen Socci
|
|
… t no threats were made, and that the defendant appeared calm as he was read his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and reviewed a consent form the officers provided. The defendant ultimately consented to a s …
|
| 2012-0827 |
N.H. |
2014-05-16 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Theadore Mitchell
|
|
… fficer Aaron Chapple brought the defendant into a booking room and read him his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant waived his rights and agreed to speak with Chapple. Chapple began a recorded intervie …
|
| 2012-045 |
N.H. |
2014-04-04 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. David Pyles
|
|
… enying his motion to suppress statements allegedly obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. We recite the facts as stated in the trial court’s order on the motion to suppress …
|
| 2012-078 |
N.H. |
2014-03-07 |
—
|
State of New Hampshire v. Tariq Zubhuza
|
|
… l was sufficient for the jury to find the following facts. On December 3, 2010, Miranda Robbins lived in a Nashua apartment with her five young children and her fiancé, Dorian Montero. Montero’s brother, D.J., also stayed at the apartment f …
|
| 2012-729 |
N.H. |
2014-01-10 |
—
|
Appeal of the Local Government Center, Inc. & a .
|
|
… at a litigant becomes cognizant of the purported bias.” Rodriguez- Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848, 857 (1st Cir. 1998). “[A] party, knowing of a ground for requesting disqualification, can not be permitted to wait and decide wheth …
|
| No. 2008-945 |
N.H. |
2013-11-06 |
—
|
State v. Addison
|
|
… at the interrogation was conducted in violation of the defendant’s rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), “because he invoked his right to counsel and his request . . . was not scrupulously honored.” This ruling related only …
|
| No. 2011-909 |
N.H. |
2013-07-16 |
—
|
State v. Noucas
|
|
… jection rubric.”). The record does not establish whether the defendant received Miranda warnings before invoking his right to counsel. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). …
|
| No. 2011-258 |
N.H. |
2013-05-07 |
—
|
State v. Gribble
|
|
… d that the interview would be recorded. He further advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant stated that he understood his rights and agreed to answer questions. The troopers the …
|
| No. 2011-595 |
N.H. |
2013-02-08 |
—
|
State v. Eschenbrenner
|
|
… nt told him during a post-arrest interview conducted after being advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant described C.T. as the oldest freshman at Raymond High School and “not the brightest g …
|
| 2010-578 |
N.H. |
2012-05-01 |
—
|
State v. Willey
|
|
… Berube and another trooper interviewed him. Berube advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which the defendant acknowledged and waived. At the defendant’s request, the interview was not reco …
|