State v. Neely

I dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defendant was in not custody when he made the incriminating statements and surrendered the gun to Murray. The trial court correctly found that defendant was in custody when he gave the incriminating statements and that, because the probation officer did not give him Miranda warnings, the statements should be suppressed. The trial court erred when it did not also suppress the gun.

The majority misinterprets the facts that the trial court found. It states that “defendant stopped Murray in the parking lot at Murray’s office and asked to…