State v. Julius Virgil Howard

OPINION

ANNE GARDNER, Justice.

I. Introduction

The State appeals from the trial court’s written order granting Appellee Julius Virgil Howard’s motion to suppress two orally-recorded statements. The State argues in its first two points that the trial court erred by granting Howard’s motion to suppress based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), because Howard was not in custody during the interviews, meaning that Miranda warnings were not required and that the interviewing officer was therefore permitted to ignore Howard’s purported request for counsel. The…