State v. Rainbolt
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
SATZ, Presiding Judge.
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals. § 547.200 RSMo Supp. 1983. We affirm.
Our review of the trial court’s ruling on this motion is limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain its finding. E.g., State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981). Once the defendant challenges the volun-tariness of his statement, the state carries the burden of proving the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., State v. Buckles, 636 S.W.2d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 1982). The…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. BucklesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- State v. BaskervilleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1981
- State v. LarsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BlairSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985
- State v. IkermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
- State v. PippengerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
- State v. SchieberMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- Brown v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.