| 2009-129 |
N.H. |
2012-03-16 |
—
|
State v. BELONGA
|
|
… em of what the defendant had said, and was instructed to read the defendant her Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and to videotape the remainder of the interview. Fifteen minutes later, he returned to the intervie …
|
| No. 2010-415 |
N.H. |
2012-01-13 |
—
|
State v. Wilmot
|
|
… less than an hour. Before the interview began, the defendant orally waived his Miranda rights and *151 signed a waiver form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966). The detectives then pressed the defendant to admit to other a …
|
| 2010-235 |
N.H. |
2011-12-28 |
—
|
State v. McDonald
|
|
… e Vermont Police barracks. Once there, Gilbert and Armaganian read McDonald his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and he waived them. Gilbert and Armaganian then questioned him about Wilcox’s death. At first, McDo …
|
| No. 2010-321 |
N.H. |
2011-11-22 |
—
|
State v. Hernandez
|
|
… na; and that she had drunk four beers that night. Testaverde then explained her Miranda rights. As he was explaining these rights, Hernandez asked whether the detectives would “go against her.” In response, Testaverde told Hernandez, “Last …
|
| No. 2009-072 |
N.H. |
2011-09-22 |
—
|
State v. Garcia
|
|
… made to the Manchester police that he claimed were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Next, at trial, it excluded testimony of a defense witness regarding statements made by co-defendan …
|
| 2010-165 |
N.H. |
2011-04-28 |
—
|
State v. Moncada
|
|
… that when he interviewed the defendant in July 2006, he read the defendant his Miranda rights. The defendant indicated that he understood his Miranda rights and did not ask any questions about them. He was able to answer the detective’s qu …
|
| 2010-059 |
N.H. |
2011-04-12 |
—
|
State v. Newcomb
|
|
… e, the affidavit contains other evidence of criminal activity, including a post-Miranda statement from Dzenowagis and information that Dzenowagis had recently transported significant quantities of scrap metal in a U-Haul truck and then sold …
|
| 2009-342 |
N.H. |
2010-11-10 |
—
|
State v. Cassavaugh
|
|
… cond interview after the victims’ bodies were found. The defendant was read his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which he waived, and he agreed to speak with the officers. After the conversation turned to his pot …
|
| 2009-516 |
N.H. |
2010-10-06 |
—
|
State v. Richard
|
|
… f me.” The police took the defendant to the police station, where he waived his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and claimed that he had acted in self-defense after Timothy entered his room and attacked him. At t …
|
| Nos. 2008-885; 2008-886 |
N.H. |
2010-05-06 |
—
|
State v. Parker
|
|
… t the interview would be audio- and video-recorded, and was then advised of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966). He stated that he understood his rights but wanted to waive them and to speak with the dete …
|
| No. 2008-287 |
N.H. |
2010-04-20 |
—
|
State v. Dilboy
|
|
… ministrative license suspension (ALS) rights. Gould then read the defendant his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Four additional blood samples and a urine sample were then taken from the defendant at the hospital …
|
| No. 2008-834 |
N.H. |
2010-03-25 |
—
|
State v. Neeper
|
|
… ted that, although Lieutenant Banaian apparently did not read the defendant his Miranda rights, he showed the defendant “the rights form.” In response, the defendant stated, “I don’t understand what is going on, so I would like an attorney. …
|
| 2008-443 |
N.H. |
2010-03-10 |
—
|
State v. Bilodeau
|
|
… to the prison to interview the defendant. The detectives read the defendant his Miranda rights from a standard form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,444-45 (1966). The defendant stated he understood them and wanted to waive them. He th …
|
| 2008-755 |
N.H. |
2009-12-04 |
—
|
State v. Joyce
|
|
… he stop and subjected him to custodial interrogation without warning him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966). Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion, ruling that the officers had reason …
|
| 2008-248 |
N.H. |
2009-12-04 |
—
|
State v. Kousounadis
|
|
… e police subjected him to custodial interrogation without first reading him his Miranda rights in violation of Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. S …
|
| 2008-323 |
N.H. |
2009-07-31 |
—
|
State v. Miller
|
|
… and then taken to an interrogation room where he was read *129 his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which he waived. The defendant was questioned by three police officers, including Levesque, who asked him where he had …
|
| 2008-055 |
N.H. |
2009-01-08 |
—
|
State v. Fletcher
|
|
… ot say that the trial court was simply correcting a clerical error. See Com. v. Miranda, 610 N.E.2d 964, 966 (Mass. 1993) (“Material or substantial errors are not ones of transcription, copying, or calculation, but are those that trample th …
|
| 2007-573 |
N.H. |
2008-08-06 |
—
|
State v. Forbes
|
|
… arrested for murder, was questioned by police officers, and, after waiving her Miranda rights, denied her complicity in the crime. Hill, 209 S.E.2d at 155 . Unbeknownst to the defendant, at the same time, one of her co-conspirators was sig …
|
| 2005-625 |
N.H. |
2008-06-27 |
—
|
State v. Johnson
|
|
… r further processing, including fingerprinting and photographing, receiving his Miranda rights, meeting with the bail bondsman, and receiving bail. After this processing was completed, the defendant stated that he had changed his mind and w …
|
| 2006-800 |
N.H. |
2007-11-09 |
—
|
State v. Lopez
|
|
… artment traveled to Newark to interview the defendant. The defendant waived his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and confessed to the officers. In October 2005, the defendant was indicted on one count of first de …
|
| 2006-456 |
N.H. |
2007-08-24 |
—
|
State v. Deschenes
|
|
… dence, thus making inequitable the admission of selective recordings of a post -Miranda interrogation, and persuading us to hold that in order to admit into evidence the taped recording of an interrogation, which occurs after Miranda rights …
|
| 2006-254 |
N.H. |
2007-08-08 |
—
|
State v. Jennings
|
|
… luntarily.” As such, it was determined that the defendant would not be read his Miranda rights. Jackson and Keller drove to the residence in an unmarked police cruiser and positioned themselves on a side street across from the residence. Li …
|
| 2006-050 |
N.H. |
2007-04-06 |
—
|
State v. Drake
|
|
… scription bottle label was Andreas Wischlburger. After the defendant waived his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), he claimed that he was the only person who used the truck and everything in it was his, but he did …
|
| 2006-115 |
N.H. |
2007-04-04 |
—
|
State v. Steimel
|
|
… e hospital, he was subjected to custodial interrogation and not informed of his Miranda rights. Because *144 the defendant was subjected to custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda, the trial court found that it was unnecessar …
|
| 2004-510 |
N.H. |
2006-12-07 |
—
|
State v. Ayer
|
|
… s booked at the police station. At the police station, the defendant waived his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and gave a formal statement to police. He stated that he felt he had been harassed by DCYF and othe …
|
| 2005-444 |
N.H. |
2006-09-28 |
—
|
State v. Goupil
|
|
… e placed him in custody and interrogated him without first notifying him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). *226 The police have no obligation to issue Miranda warnings when the person being interviewed is n …
|
| No. 2005-005 |
N.H. |
2006-05-17 |
—
|
In re Guardianship of Kapitula
|
|
… ts to enter an express finding that the oral or written waiver of a defendant’s Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and any confession was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. Radziewicz, 122 N.H. at 211 . We made c …
|
| No. 2004-742 |
N.H. |
2005-10-31 |
—
|
State v. Barkus
|
|
… the results of a breath test administered following an alleged violation of her Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant contends that if the results were admitted, the trial court improperly relied upon th …
|
| No. 2004-160 |
N.H. |
2005-06-21 |
—
|
State v. Cowles
|
|
… was taken to the police station, unhandcuffed and booked. After being read his Miranda rights, the defendant made incriminating statements. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). *371 The defendant moved to suppress his statements, a …
|
| No. 2003-082 |
N.H. |
2004-06-29 |
—
|
State v. Zwicker
|
|
… e 7th Street address. Stiegler then explained to the defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and told him that they were taking him to his residence. The defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights. Upon …
|
| No. 2003-002 |
N.H. |
2004-04-19 |
—
|
State v. Belton
|
|
… making this determination, we consider the following four factors: (1) whether Miranda warnings were given; (2) the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession; (3) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (4) the purpose and …
|
| No. 2003-078 |
N.H. |
2004-02-27 |
—
|
State v. Velez
|
|
… d ran from the store. The detectives then, at 9:43 p.m., read the defendant his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant waived his Miranda rights at 9:49 p.m., at which point the detectives asked him if he …
|
| No. 2002-618 |
N.H. |
2004-01-30 |
—
|
State v. Rezk
|
|
… nt to the Kingston Police Department. Once there, the police advised him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). lie was again advised of his Miranda rights when he was taken into a conference room. Each time, th …
|
| No. 2003-232 |
N.H. |
2004-01-08 |
—
|
State v. Johnston
|
|
… ages were revealed. Detective Crockett immediately advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant indicated that he understood his rights and he wanted to cooperate. Thereafter, Detec …
|
| No. 2002-589 |
N.H. |
2003-12-29 |
—
|
State v. Turmel
|
|
… ntually found in the car’s ashtray. Neither Sweet nor Mayers read the defendant Miranda warnings before the questioning of the defendant and his subsequent consent to search the car. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress all evide …
|
| No. 2002-603 |
N.H. |
2003-10-10 |
—
|
State v. D'Amour
|
|
… at he had asthma, for which he used an inhaler. After reading the defendant his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), Officer MacDonald took him to the Portsmouth Police Department for booking. Once there, another pol …
|
| No. 2000-513 |
N.H. |
2003-09-26 |
—
|
State v. Ayer
|
|
… interrogation room for questioning. The detectives advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and obtained his waiver. Then, after the detectives questioned him for an hour and fifteen minutes, …
|
| No. 2001-469 |
N.H. |
2003-08-18 |
—
|
State v. Remick
|
|
… the jury, it concluded that while the testimony did not violate the defendant’s Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the State had engaged in a discovery violation because it had not disclosed the testimony to the de …
|
| No. 2000-789 |
N.H. |
2003-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Plch
|
|
… nt of his rights by reading each right listed on the Austin Police Department’s Miranda form, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and asking the defendant if he understood that right. With regard to the right to counsel, the follow …
|
| No. 2002-288 |
N.H. |
2003-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Spencer
|
|
… Superior Court (Smukler, J.) erred by denying her motions to suppress her pr e-Miranda statement and silence and her post -Miranda confession. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. The following facts were adduced at the …
|
| No. 2001-679 |
N.H. |
2003-04-28 |
—
|
State v. Fleetwood
|
|
… rry, J.) suppressed statements obtained before the defendant was advised of her Miranda rights, but admitted statements she made after waiving those rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant also filed a motion in l …
|
| No. 2000-234 |
N.H. |
2003-04-07 |
—
|
State v. Higgins
|
|
… the Trial Court (Groff, J.) erred by: (1) ruling that he voluntarily waived his Miranda rights prior to making incriminating statements to the police; (2) precluding him from questioning the victim regarding her prior consensual sexual acti …
|
| No. 2001-259 |
N.H. |
2003-01-24 |
—
|
State v. Dupont
|
|
… lice escorted the defendant to an interview room, where they advised him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). After the defendant signed a form waiving his Miranda rights, the police began interrogating him ab …
|
| No. 2001-311 |
N.H. |
2002-12-27 |
—
|
State v. Locke
|
|
… eau, C.J.) erroneously denied his motion to suppress statements he made without Miranda warnings; (2) the Superior Court (McHugh, J.) erroneously denied his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial; and (3) the Superio …
|
| No. 2000-193 |
N.H. |
2002-12-20 |
—
|
State v. Cook
|
|
… defendant that he did not have to talk with them, but did not advise him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant expressed his willingness to talk. During the interview, he made several incriminatin …
|
| No. 2001-492 |
N.H. |
2002-12-18 |
—
|
State v. Allard
|
|
… evidence of her false statement should be excluded because she did not receive Miranda warnings. Fifth, she argues, and the State agrees, that the court erroneously denied an in camera review of the internal memoranda prepared by the testi …
|
| No. 2001-379 |
N.H. |
2002-12-17 |
—
|
State v. Grey
|
|
… l court further ruled that the defendant was not entitled to the protections of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), because he was not subjected to a custodial interrogation until after he already had incriminated himself and been plac …
|
| No. 2001-396 |
N.H. |
2002-12-17 |
—
|
State v. Hall
|
|
… ed the defendant. At the beginning of the interview, the officer administered a Miranda rights form. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant stated he understood each right, and he signed his initials next to each right o …
|
| No. 2001-516 |
N.H. |
2002-11-25 |
—
|
State v. Chrisicos
|
|
… The officer concluded that the defendant was intoxicated and advised him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The defendant did not respond, but asked the officer questions about his car. The officer refused t …
|
| No. 2001-083 |
N.H. |
2002-10-21 |
—
|
State v. Demeritt
|
|
… 976), which prohibits the prosecution from using a defendant’s post-arrest, pre Miranda silence to impeach. Although the defense argued Doyle applied, the court denied the motion for a mistrial. After the State rested its case, the defendan …
|