Rush v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtBattaglia, J.
The case sub judice presents this Court with the issue of whether a police detective’s modification of the Miranda warnings to state that Petitioner could be appointed counsel “at some time” satisfied the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). This case also presents us with determining the scope of our appellate jurisdiction to consider a “cross-appeal” by a defen*73dant when the State notes an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a motion to suppress under Section 12—302(c)(3) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.1
Rush, the defendant…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Missouri v. SeibertSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Duckworth v. EaganSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- California v. PrysockSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Robeson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1979
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Bost v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
- Unger v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Coleman v. Soccer Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
- Cox v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Hailes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2015
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.