Legal Opinion

Mayfield v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided September 28, 1987No. CR 87-60PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

David Newbern, Justice.

The appellant, Michael Eugene Mayfield, was convicted of aggravated robbery. He contends the trial court erred in failing to suppress a statement he made while in police custody because the rights warning he was given failed to inform him that he could have an attorney present even if he could not afford one. We agree that the warning he was given was insufficient to comply with the requirements set forth in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and thus we must reverse the conviction. We disagree with the appellant’s further contention that the jury was improperly…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Spano v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. California v. PrysockSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. RhinesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  3. Whitmore v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  4. Addison v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  5. Halfacre v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2015

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

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

Powered by the Exa API