In the Interest of F.M.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

In the Interest of F.M.

706 So. 2d 441, 1997 La. LEXIS 4009, 1997 WL 807889

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedDecember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 97-CK-1851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 So. 2d 441 (In the Interest of F.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of F.M., 706 So. 2d 441, 1997 La. LEXIS 4009, 1997 WL 807889 (La. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In re State of Louisiana; — Other(s); applying for supervisory’ and/or remedial -writs; Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 97-03807QC; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CW-0646.

Granted. The ruling of the trial court suppressing the defendant’s written statement is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. Even assuming that the defendant gave his first, oral “gist statement” in response to police interrogation and that the officers had failed to advise him of his Miranda rights and failed also to follow the requirements of State In Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1979), the defendant’s subsequent written statement made after the police advised him of his Miranda rights and after they provided him with an opportunity to consult with a concerned adult in compliance with Dino, remained free of any taint from the prior statement. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 -S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985)'; State v. Cage, 97-1837 (La. 11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1280,

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ. TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re State of Louisiana; — Other(s); applying for supervisory’ and/or remedial -writs; Parish of Orleans, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 97-03807QC; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CW-0646.

Granted. The ruling of the trial court suppressing the defendant’s written statement is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings. Even assuming that the defendant gave his first, oral “gist statement” in response to police interrogation and that the officers had failed to advise him of his Miranda rights and failed also to follow the requirements of State In Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1979), the defendant’s subsequent written statement made after the police advised him of his Miranda rights and after they provided him with an opportunity to consult with a concerned adult in compliance with Dino, remained free of any taint from the prior statement. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 -S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985)'; State v. Cage, 97-1837 (La. 11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1280,

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ. TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 So. 2d 441, 1997 La. LEXIS 4009, 1997 WL 807889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-fm-la-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack