| No. 2001-718 |
N.H. |
2002-09-16 |
—
|
Guglielmo v. WorldCom, Inc.
|
|
… county jail inmates against jails and exclusive-contract telephone companies); Miranda v. Michigan, 168 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (dismissing Sherman Act and state anti-trust claims brought by recipients of collect calls from state …
|
| No. 2001-262 |
N.H. |
2002-07-15 |
—
|
State v. Roache
|
|
… specific efforts to contact him or offer assistance in order for the suspect’s Miranda waiver to be valid. We affirm. The relevant facts are undisputed. On June 15, 2000, two detectives from the Nashua Police Department went to the residen …
|
| No. 2000-527 |
N.H. |
2002-04-16 |
—
|
State v. Spaulding
|
|
… ation after the police interviewed R.D. and T.O. and, upon being advised of his Miranda rights, agreed to answer some questions. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). On direct examination, the prosecutor asked Lieutenant Brown, “Aft …
|
| No. 98-749 |
N.H. |
2002-02-25 |
—
|
State v. Jeleniewski
|
|
… wed by Salem Detective Kevin Swift. The defendant was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Throughout the interview, the defendant denied involvement in the crime, stating that although he w …
|
| No. 2000-139 |
N.H. |
2001-12-24 |
—
|
State v. Heirtzler
|
|
… al acting as an instrument or agent of the police may be required to administer Miranda warnings). In sum, the role of school officials is to foster a safe and healthy educational environment. In order to do so, it is necessary that they be …
|
| No. 2000-060 |
N.H. |
2001-12-21 |
—
|
State v. Barnett
|
|
… of general conversation, Detective Brooke Lemoine advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966), but made it clear that he was not under arrest. The defendant executed a valid waiver of hi …
|
| No. 99-767 |
N.H. |
2001-11-19 |
—
|
State v. Sawyer
|
|
… h he was a passenger; and (2) ruled that statements he made in violation of his Miranda rights could be used against him for impeachment purposes. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. The following facts were either found …
|
| No. 99-750 |
N.H. |
2001-11-02 |
—
|
State v. Aubuchont
|
|
… ts to the police because they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. On January 28, 1999, the defendant and his wife, Patricia Aubuchont, brought their ten-w …
|
| No. 99-647 |
N.H. |
2001-10-03 |
—
|
State v. Pehowic
|
|
… 8 meeting he properly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel, pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and accordingly Sergeant Tucker was precluded from initiating contact with him at subsequent meetings. See Edwards v. A …
|
| No. 2000-250 |
N.H. |
2001-07-23 |
—
|
State v. Duffy
|
|
… to the police station. While in the cruiser, an officer read the defendant his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The officer testified that the defendant said that he understood these rights. There is no written …
|
| No. 98-461 |
N.H. |
2001-07-02 |
—
|
State v. Hill
|
|
… anywhere until we find out who you are.” The police had not given the defendant Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when Officer Sinclair made this statement. The defendant immediately responded by providing his c …
|
| No. 99-291 |
N.H. |
2001-04-24 |
—
|
State v. Sprague
|
|
… s ruling on the admissibility of a statement allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda). *338 The parties agree that there are 242 days from January 15 to September 14, 1998, the date the defendant was to be tried. We have determined that …
|
| No. 98-497 |
N.H. |
2001-01-29 |
—
|
State v. Farrell
|
|
… tive Gagnon began interrogating the defendant. Gagnon explained the defendant’s Miranda rights and gave him a copy of the simplified Miranda form used for juveniles. He then read each paragraph aloud and solicited the defendant’s understand …
|
| No. 98-385 |
N.H. |
2001-01-24 |
—
|
State v. Tucker
|
|
… s whether a custodial statement, made during questioning without the benefit of Miranda warnings, offering a bribe to a police officer is admissible to support a bribery conviction. We affirm. The following facts were adduced at the suppres …
|
| No. 98-571 |
N.H. |
2000-12-29 |
—
|
State v. Brunelle
|
|
… g him in the back seat of her cruiser, she read the defendant his rights from a Miranda card, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and obtained his oral waiver. Following his indictment, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, con …
|
| No. 98-471 |
N.H. |
2000-11-22 |
—
|
In re Wesley B.
|
|
… ce Station. He gave Wesley some juice, read his rights to him from the juvenile Miranda form, see State v. Benoit, 126 N.H. 6, 22-24 , 490 A.2d 295, 306-07 (1985), and proceeded to inquire about the fire and its discovery. Wesley explained …
|
| No. 97-588 |
N.H. |
2000-10-31 |
—
|
State v. Sonthikoummane
|
|
… ’s residence, they arrested Sinbandith. While in custody, Sinbandith waived his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966), and spoke with the police about his role in the crack cocaine sales. Three hours and ten mi …
|
| No. 99-088 |
N.H. |
2000-10-11 |
—
|
State v. Dumas
|
|
… holding that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. The following facts were adduced at trial. The defendant, who has a full-scale I.Q. of 73 or …
|
| No. 97-560 |
N.H. |
1999-12-16 |
—
|
State v. Dorval
|
|
… d by: (1) not suppressing statements he made to an informant after invoking his Miranda rights; and (2) excluding certain statements as hearsay. We affirm. The parties agree to the following facts. Two elderly sisters were murdered in their …
|
| No. 97-206 |
N.H. |
1999-12-08 |
—
|
State v. Hammond
|
|
… suppress the oral and written confessions on the grounds that he was not given Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), that the statements were not voluntary, and that the statements were obtained in violation of his …
|
| No. 97-617 |
N.H. |
1999-07-21 |
—
|
State v. Ford
|
|
… l agent Michael Rosanova on November 8. After executing a written waiver of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the defendant advised Rosanova he had information about an armed robbery in Hampton Beach. Rosanova …
|
| No. 97-387 |
N.H. |
1999-07-13 |
—
|
State v. Bennett
|
|
… s hyoid bone had been fractured. Following his arrest, the defendant waived his Miranda rights and gave a taped statement. He was charged with second degree murder, RSA 630:1-b, 1(b) (1996), and convicted by a jury of the lesser-included of …
|
| No. 96-446 |
N.H. |
1999-06-24 |
—
|
State v. Cobb
|
|
… statements were inadmissible because taint of illegal arrest was not purged by Miranda warnings). *651 VI. Search of Knapsack The sixth issue raised by the defendant is whether the affidavit in support of the search warrant for his knapsac …
|
| No. 97-073 |
N.H. |
1998-10-08 |
—
|
State v. Gotsch
|
|
… vision set, and fan. The Poughkeepsie police then informed the defendant of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966), which the defendant waived. During police questioning, the defendant confessed to killing h …
|
| No. 97-017 |
N.H. |
1998-10-05 |
—
|
State v. Tinkham
|
|
… should have been suppressed because Brooks failed to provide the defendant with Miranda warnings before questioning him. See N.H. Const. pt. I, art. 15; U.S. Const. amend. V; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 (1966). We address the d …
|
| No. 96-139 |
N.H. |
1998-06-11 |
—
|
State v. Monroe
|
|
… essions; (2) admitting statements, including confessions, he made without fresh Miranda warnings following a polygraph examination; (3) excluding evidence of his son’s prior bad acts; (4) admitting hearsay testimony from the lead investigat …
|
| No. 96-124 |
N.H. |
1998-03-23 |
—
|
State v. Graca
|
|
… ourt’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress this evidence. *675 II. Miranda Warnings The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made without Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. …
|
| No. 95-330 |
N.H. |
1997-03-12 |
—
|
State v. Prevost
|
|
… rijuana. The defendant was placed under arrest and subsequently informed of his Miranda rights. Five days later, on February 10, 1994, the defendant’s brother telephoned Sergeant Paul asking whether he would accept a collect call from the j …
|
| No. 94-524 |
N.H. |
1996-07-19 |
—
|
State v. Aubuchont
|
|
… first confession). The defendant, however, was not informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), prior to the interview. When the interview ended, the officers instructed the defendant to report to the Manchester Pol …
|
| No. 95-051 |
N.H. |
1996-07-02 |
—
|
State v. Anderson
|
|
… d the field sobriety tests and first informed the defendant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), testified that the defendant had refused to take a breath test. The prosecutor then asked whether the defendant said “a …
|
| No. 95-011 |
N.H. |
1996-06-06 |
—
|
State v. Lesnick
|
|
… aid, “Don’t arrest my wife. She didn’t mean to do it.” The defendant waived her Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and told Connare that after she and the victim, her husband, had argued, he had gone to his mother’ …
|
| Nos. 92-335; 94-142 |
N.H. |
1996-03-19 |
—
|
State v. Seymour
|
|
… went to the police station that evening, where he was advised of and waived his Miranda rights. He spoke with Detectives Hayes and MacDonald in what they characterized as a cooperative and relaxed manner. He claimed to have had no knowledge …
|
| No. 94-487 |
N.H. |
1995-12-28 |
—
|
State v. Johnson
|
|
… ot supported by probable cause, and that he was not advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when he was subjected to custodial interrogation as the police executed the search warrant. The trial court denied the …
|
| No. 94-110 |
N.H. |
1995-10-24 |
—
|
State v. Winslow
|
|
… icer took the defendant to the police station, where she read the defendant his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and his rights as described in the State of New Hampshire Administrative License Suspension (ALS) R …
|
| No. 93-268 |
N.H. |
1995-10-03 |
—
|
State v. Grant-Chase
|
|
… o cooperate with the investigation. The officers explained to the defendant her Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which she explicitly waived by signing a waiver form, and elicited incriminating statements. The de …
|
| No. 93-329 |
N.H. |
1995-02-03 |
—
|
State v. Canelo
|
|
… rticle 19, reasoning that because the detention was illegal, “regardless of the Miranda warnings, even if there were a valid waiver, the article 19 and fourth amendment violations stand as a bar to the use of the . . . statements.” Id. at 3 …
|
| No. 93-659 |
N.H. |
1994-12-30 |
—
|
State v. Lopez
|
|
… er. At issue is the federally recognized public safety exception to the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We affirm. The relevant facts are not in dispute. On March 23, 1991, at approximately 9:00 p.m., a young man approached …
|
| No. 93-192 |
N.H. |
1994-12-30 |
—
|
State v. Girmay
|
|
… killed them with an axe.” He was taken to the Hanover police station, where the Miranda warnings were read to him. Later that day, the defendant gave a lengthy tape-recorded statement to the police. The defense sought to call three expert w …
|
| No. 93-324 |
N.H. |
1994-12-09 |
—
|
State v. Gagnon
|
|
… re interrogating him, Officer Ruel read the defendant his rights as outlined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), from a departmental card. Officer Ruel then asked the defendant whether he understood those rights. The defendant respo …
|
| No. 93-373 |
N.H. |
1994-11-07 |
—
|
State v. McLellan
|
|
… told them that he did not pick up a hitchhiker. He admitted to having signed a Miranda form which he understood waived his right to remain silent. He also testified that he did not inform his wife of the alleged incident until after he was …
|
| No. 93-347 |
N.H. |
1994-11-02 |
—
|
State v. Taylor
|
|
… Barrington Police Department? What happened there? [Defendant]: They read me my Miranda rights and as soon as they read me my Miranda rights, then I was accused of something that I did not do and wouldn’t do. (Emphasis added.) The trial cou …
|
| No. 92-516 |
N.H. |
1994-07-22 |
—
|
State v. Carroll
|
|
… eo Morency, who drove to the Carroll home where he advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. After Morency spoke with Lamy by telephone, the defendant agreed to go to the Bedford police station to continue the interview. The defendant dr …
|
| No. 93-412 |
N.H. |
1994-07-14 |
—
|
State v. Little
|
|
… mething quite different. The prosecutor said: “And after [Little] was given his Miranda rights and told that he was free to leave and didn’t have to answer questions but at that time indicated that he wanted to get the matters off of his ch …
|
| No. 92-736 |
N.H. |
1994-04-21 |
—
|
State v. Decker
|
|
… ng was at the request of Robidoux, Robidoux must be advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Robidoux must specifically waive his right to have his attorney present at the interview. Babcock relayed this info …
|
| No. 92-322 |
N.H. |
1994-04-05 |
—
|
State v. Stayman
|
|
… court erred in (1) finding that she had knowingly and intelligently waived her Miranda rights before giving a confession, and (2) admitting photographs of Sarah that showed injuries inflicted by both her and her boyfriend, Tim Gorham. We a …
|
| No. 92-449 |
N.H. |
1994-01-27 |
—
|
State v. LaFountain
|
|
… e police because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. We affirm. On August 18,1988, the defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault by digital penetration. After the …
|
| No. 91-036 |
N.H. |
1993-12-21 |
—
|
State v. Low
|
|
… as in an impaired, “hypervigilant” mental state when he executed waivers of his Miranda rights. We will not reverse the trial court’s findings on the issue of waiver unless the manifest weight of the evidence, viewed in the light most favor …
|
| No. 92-179 |
N.H. |
1993-11-04 |
—
|
State v. Drew
|
|
… ad transported the defendant to Nashua District Court and had warned him of his Miranda rights. Trooper Roche testified that after the defendant indicated he understood those rights and agreed to talk, “[h]e stated he was arrested for DWI.” …
|
| No. 92-206 |
N.H. |
1993-07-07 |
—
|
State v. Noel
|
|
… he rear of the truck while the defendant remained inside the truck. He gave her Miranda warnings and asked her questions regarding the furniture. He testified that she stated that' she and the defendant had purchased the furniture at 11:00 …
|
| No. 91-259 |
N.H. |
1993-04-28 |
—
|
State v. Jaroma
|
|
… for indicating use of an alias. LeBel then read Jaroma the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and he indicated that he understood those rights. While awaiting arraignment, Jaroma and his counsel conferred in the p …
|