Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Raheem Moore

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 2015No. 2013AP000127-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceAnnette Kingsland Ziegler, J.

¶ 103. (concurring). I agree with the majority opinion that all of Raheem Moore's statements to the detectives were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. I join the majority opinion in that respect. I write separately because I believe that the majority opinion should take this opportunity to conclude that suppression of a juvenile's unrecorded statements under Wis. Stat. § 938.31(3)(b) is not an available remedy if a juvenile is in adult court. While a juvenile's statements during a custodial interrogation generally must be recorded, this case was an adult criminal court proceeding, not a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State v. Jerrell C.J.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. PrattWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Brauneis v. State, Labor & Industry Review CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000
  5. In Interest of G. & LpCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984

1 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