Burin v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
The primary issue in this case is whether the appellant’s confession should have been suppressed because of his mental subnormality. We affirm the trial court’s ruling denying the motion to suppress. We set out the applicable law in some detail, even on points not argued, because there was obvious confusion below about the burden of proof, and the distinction between insanity as a defense and the lack of voluntariness of a confession due to mental subnormality.
I. The Privilege
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966), the Supreme Court recognized that custodial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Colorado v. SpringSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Branscomb v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- Mitchell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
- Howell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
- Brawley v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.