| 7046 |
N.H. |
1975-11-28 |
—
|
State v. Handfield
|
|
… xicating liquor. He was then put under arrest, placed in the cruiser, given the Miranda warnings, and told of his rights under the implied consent law. He asked for a lawyer but was told he could not have one until after he had had a blood …
|
| 6862 |
N.H. |
1975-09-30 |
—
|
State v. Collins
|
|
… been a denial of a speedy trial, whether a statement made to the warden without Miranda warnings was admissible, whether it was error to permit it to be disclosed that the alleged crime occurred while defendant was in prison, and whether in …
|
| 7199 |
N.H. |
1975-07-31 |
—
|
State v. Williams
|
|
… t’s testimony in both of the hearings was voluntarily and understanding^ given. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Powers v. United States, 223 U.S. 303, 314 (1912); see 3 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 826, at 351-52 (Chadbourn rev. 197 …
|
| 6552 |
N.H. |
1975-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Conklin
|
|
… oom, the defendant was for the first time advised of his constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He then proceeded to give a complete statement of the incident, without questioning or interruption, which was recorded …
|
| 6630; 6802; 6803; 6866 |
N.H. |
1975-03-31 |
—
|
State v. Arsenault
|
|
… e not within the privilege against self-incrimination. Consequently the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), is not involved. The evidence of the field sobriety tests is therefore competent and admissible. The cases of Farrell, …
|
| 6571 |
N.H. |
1974-12-31 |
—
|
State v. Laaman
|
|
… ese officers, the lieutenant testified that he gave the defendant the required “Miranda” warnings and told him about his discovery. “I told him that people might get hurt and asked him did he know how long it would be before that bomb went …
|
| 6863 |
N.H. |
1974-11-29 |
—
|
State v. Booton
|
|
… ay not use at trial the fact of defendant’s silence in the face of accusations. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 468 n.37 (1966). See also 87 Harv. L. Rev. 882 (1974); Johnson v. Patterson, 475 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1973). But, here the pr …
|
| 6858 |
N.H. |
1974-10-31 |
—
|
State v. Daigle
|
|
… gment on defendant’s motion because of an alleged violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Thereafter, without notice to the State, the court vacated its finding and dismissed the complaint. Later, the court re …
|
| 6202 |
N.H. |
1973-10-31 |
—
|
State v. Mitchell
|
|
… the defendant’s statements was not incompetent under principles established by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), and the motion to suppress was properly denied. An examination of the record of the …
|
| 6259 |
N.H. |
1972-12-29 |
—
|
State v. Collins
|
|
… French was sent to get a statement from defendant in his cell. He was given the Miranda warnings and responded that he did not want to say anything without a lawyer present. Almost immediately, he asked for a doctor and fell to the floor. F …
|
| 6395 |
N.H. |
1972-11-03 |
—
|
State v. Dunsmore
|
|
… to RSA 262-A:62 (supp.). Before the sample was taken he was read the so-called “Miranda warning” and then the officer read to him the following statement: “ 1. You have been arrested and charged with driving while under the influence of int …
|
| 6425 |
N.H. |
1972-11-03 |
—
|
State v. Larochelle
|
|
… te trooper who took him to the Rochester police station. There he was given the Miranda warning and advised of his rights under the implied consent law, RSA 262-A:69-c. Defendant chose to have a breathalyzer test which was administered appr …
|
| 6096 |
N.H. |
1971-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Geldart
|
|
… J. The question presented in this case is whether an oral confession made after Miranda warnings at the scene of a burglary within minutes after arrest and subsequently reduced to writing within two or three hours was a voluntary confession …
|
| 6113 |
N.H. |
1970-12-30 |
—
|
State v. Desjardins
|
|
… ghts under the implied consent law and was given the warnings as established by Miranda vs. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 16 L.ed.2d 694. ” The offense of which the defendant was convicted is subject to a penalty of imprisonment for not more than si …
|
| 5793 |
N.H. |
1970-12-01 |
—
|
State v. Flynn
|
|
… had been received in evidence without compliance with standards established by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966), and because “evidence flowing from an unlawful arrest was admitted against him. ” A …
|
| 5883 |
N.H. |
1970-09-08 |
—
|
State v. Petkus
|
|
… ruling: “ The Court finds that the defendant was properly warned of his rights [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 ] at the time of the arrest, and notified of his right to counsel, that he did not request …
|
| 5926 |
N.H. |
1970-03-31 |
—
|
State v. Scanlon
|
|
… to have been such as to require suppression of this evidence under the rule of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 . See Jennings v. United States, 391 F. 2d 512 (5th Cir. 1968); Morgan v. State, 2 Md. App. 440, 234 A.2d 762 . There was evid …
|
| 5946 |
N.H. |
1969-09-30 |
—
|
State v. George
|
|
… e United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1963) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1965) since Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966) and Jenkins v. Delaware, 395 U. S. 213 (1969) provided that the Escob …
|
| 5514 |
N.H. |
1969-06-30 |
—
|
State v. Coolidge
|
|
… sel, which the rule of that case would require. State v. Santos, 107 N. H. 490. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , decided, after this trial, on June 13, 1966, does not apply to this case. Frazier v. Cupp, supra; State v. Santos, supra. We …
|
| 5790 |
N.H. |
1968-11-26 |
—
|
State v. Colcord
|
|
… a couch. She was awakened and advised of her constitutional rights “ under the Miranda warning. ” The officers showed her a search warrant for a wooden box in her bedroom containing packages of marijuana rolled up in tinfoil and let her lo …
|
| No. 5449 |
N.H. |
1967-03-07 |
—
|
State v. Davis
|
|
… not under arrest when the statements were made, and the case is not governed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 . The requirements of that case, which was decided on June 13, 1966, were not retroactive, so as to apply to the trial of the …
|
| 5561 |
N.H. |
1967-01-13 |
—
|
State v. Santos
|
|
… eived in evidence. If the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (June 13, 1966) had preceded the trial of this case, the Trial Court might well have excluded the evidence, since in Miranda i …
|
| No. 5506 |
N.H. |
1966-11-30 |
—
|
Beausoleil v. United Furniture Workers of America
|
|
… stituting unfair labor practices. Radio-Officers v. Labor Board, 347 U. S. 17 ; Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB Rep. 181. The exhibit filed by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss indicates that the National Labor Relations Board …
|