Legal Opinion

State v. Murray

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1994No. Cr. 930082PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NEUMANN, Justice.

The State of North Dakota appeals from an order entered by the Pembina County District Court suppressing the defendant’s confession. On appeal, the State argues that the investigating officer’s failure to advise the defendant of the existence of a warrant for his arrest does not affect the admissibility of his confession. We find that the investigation met Federal and State constitutional requirements, and we therefore reverse. As an alternative legal theory to uphold the suppression, appellee argues the confession violates NDCC § 29-21-12.1. On this point we remand for…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. City of Fairgo v. ThompsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State v. WinklerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. SabinashNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. SyvertsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. HaibeckNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004

24 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