Archive | Miranda rights

RSS feed for this section

State v. Larson

State v. Larson, 2015 MT 271 (Sept. 15, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Larson’s motion to suppress statements made in police custody; and (2) whether Larson’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present the video recording of the police interview at the suppression hearing.

Short Answer: (1) No; and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Susie Casey was found dead in the Yellowstone River in the spring of 2008, several weeks after her family reported her missing. An autopsy determined she had died of strangulation and then been put in the water.

Larson and Susie married in 1993. Susie filed for divorce in 1997, which became final in February 1998. Larson did not want the divorce, and had no contact with the children for several years after the marriage ended.…

State v. Braulick

State v. Braulick, 2015 MT 147 (May 26, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court erred in denying Braulick’s motion to suppress spontaneous statements made in custody after he requested an attorney and before he was notified of his Miranda rights; (2) whether the district court erred in denying Braulick’s motion to exclude one of the crime victims from the courtroom.

Short Answer: (1) No, and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Jeremy Braulick, 39, asked to stay with his mother, Cheryl, and stepfather, Scott, over Christmas in 2011. His mother was initially reluctant and agreed on the condition that Braulick would not be abusive toward her.

On Dec. 27, 2011, Braulick became increasingly agitated, and his mother and stepfather told him he would have to leave.…

State v. Kelm

State v. Kelm, 2013 MT 115 (April 30, 2013) (5-0) (Baker, J.)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court properly suppressed all evidence gathered after Kelm’s arrest because the arresting officer did not comply with § 46-6-312, MCA; (2) whether the district court properly suppressed all evidence obtained after Kelm’s arrest because the officer failed to advise Kelm of her Miranda rights; (3) whether the district court properly suppressed evidence seized from Kelm’s vehicle.

Short Answer: (1) No, as the failure to comply did not affect Kelm’s substantial rights; (2) no, as Miranda protects only self-incriminating statements made while in custodial interrogation; and (3) no, as the officer was lawfully present in Kelm’s vehicle when he returned to turn her lights off.…