Legal Opinion

State v. Knuckles

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1992No. 1991-1838PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHebbebt R. Bbown, J.

The single issue before the court is whether the statement “We want to talk to you about Bobby Bennett” is a “further interrogation” prohibited by Edwards v. Arizona (1981), 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378. Edwards and its progeny have established a bright-line test for dealing with defendants who invoke their right to counsel. Simply stated, if a defendant requests counsel, the police must stop all questioning and interrogation immediately. Any statement, question or remark which is “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” is an interrogation. Rhode Island v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Smith v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. MooreOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. TreeshOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. TuckerOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. EvansOhio Court of Appeals · 2001

27 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