Jamie Aaron Kuhne v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
McCullough, judge.
Jamie Aaron Kuhne challenges his voluntary manslaughter conviction, arguing that certain statements he made to law enforcement should have been excluded as the fruit of an illegal interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). We assume, without deciding, that appellant was in custody, and we hold that the statements were admissible under Seibert. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
On December 11, 2009, around 7:20 a.m.,…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Marks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. AbbottSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- State v. AbbottSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- Secret v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2018
- Amended September 30, 2015 State of Iowa v. Hillary Lee TylerSupreme Court of Iowa · 2015
- Commonwealth of Virginia v. Brian Daniel DelcidCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.