State v. Stanga
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
KONENKAMP, Justice.
[¶ 1.] In this appeal, we must decide if the circuit court erred in ruling that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. The interrogating officer repeatedly told the defendant that any statement he gave was “between you and me,” signifying that it would not go beyond the interrogation room. Officers cannot mislead suspects on their constitutional rights. Here, the required Miranda warning that any admission can be used in court was subverted by the suggestion that admissions would not be used against him. Therefore, the confession…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- State v. DillonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. TuttleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. FrazierSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Lee v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- State v. OwensSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.