State v. R.M.

GROSS, Judge.

The state challenges an order suppressing evidence.1 We deny certiorari, because when the record testimony is viewed under the proper standard for appellate review, there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling.

The state contests an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress statements. The primary focus of the defendant’s motion in the trial court was a variation in the standard warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, reh’g denied sub nom, California v. Stewart, 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121…