Legal Opinion

State v. Juntunen

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 2014No. 20130324PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SANDSTROM, Justice.

[¶ 1] Austin Juntunen appeals from an order deferring imposition of sentence entered after he conditionally pled guilty to the charge of ingesting a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We remand to the district court for further findings explaining the basis for its denial of Juntunen’s motion to suppress.

[¶ 2] Juntunen was charged with ingesting a controlled substance. He moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of his person and statements he made while he was detained. Juntunen argued his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. SchmittNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. HartNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State v. GressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011
  5. State v. GressNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2011

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. KnoxNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. AplandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. RollandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024
  4. State v. SargentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024
  5. State v. RollandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2024

6 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