Legal Opinion

State v. Muntean

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 5, 2010No. 2009-241PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.

¶ 1. This case presents the issue of whether defendant William D. Muntean was in police custody at any point during a police interview during which he made various incriminating statements. The trial court concluded that defendant was in police custody during the entire interview and that, because defendant had not received Miranda warnings before or at any point during the interview, the incriminating statements must be suppressed. The State filed an interlocutory appeal contesting the trial court’s decision. We granted the appeal and affirm.

*53¶ 2. Defendant is charged with two counts of…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Yarborough v. AlvaradoSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Stansbury v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Peacher v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. SullivanSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
  3. State v. Hieu TranSupreme Court of Vermont · 2012
  4. State v. Jason L. GagneSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
  5. State v. Eric K. ManningSupreme Court of Vermont · 2015

23 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