Legal Opinion
State v. Nobles
Idaho Court of Appeals
Decided February 19, 1991No. 18174PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WALTERS, Chief Judge.
William Mann Nobles III pled guilty in the district court to robbery. Pursuant to I.C.R. 11(a)(2), Nobles reserved the right to appeal and challenge the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress his confession to the robbery. On appeal, Nobles contends that the confession should have been suppressed because he was not given timely Miranda warnings. Nobles also submits that he was coerced into making the confession. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
The background facts are as follows. In December, 1988, Buck’s convenience store, located in Idaho…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Bram v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- New York v. QuarlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. YagerIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
- Halberg v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1995
- State v. McFarlandIdaho Court of Appeals · 1994
- State v. CardenasIdaho Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. OsborneIdaho Court of Appeals · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.