Legal Opinion

In re D.F.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 2011No. 10 NO 374PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Vukovich, Judge.

{¶ 1} Juvenile-appellant D.F. appeals after he was adjudicated a delinquent child by the Noble County Juvenile Court. He contends that his incriminating statements should have been suppressed because he was not provided with Miranda warnings prior to questioning on whether he had provided his prescription medication to a fellow detention-center resident. However, merely because appellant was a resident in a youth-detention facility does not mean that he was in custody for purposes of Miranda. To the contrary, Miranda warnings are not required for on-scene-investigation…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. State v. GoffOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. GummOhio Supreme Court · 1995

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re B.C.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2015
  2. State v. DetienneOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. State v. JackOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. In re B.C.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API