State v. LaFountain

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. LaFountain

499 A.2d 796, 146 Vt. 649, 1985 Vt. LEXIS 350

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 2, 1985

DocketNo. 84-408

StatusPublished

This text of 499 A.2d 796 (State v. LaFountain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. LaFountain, 499 A.2d 796, 146 Vt. 649, 1985 Vt. LEXIS 350 (Vt. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant has squarely raised a question of first impression: Is a “jailhouse interrogation” presumptively custodial under the provisions of the Vermont Constitution, ch. I, art. 10, thereby requiring prophylactic “Miranda warnings” by police officials?

Neither party, however, has presented any substantive analysis or argument on this question. This constitutes inadequate briefing, and we decline to address the state constitutional question presented in this case. State v. Taylor, 145 Vt. 437, 439, 491 A.2d 1034, 1035 (1985). Moreover, even if the issue had been properly briefed, there is no apparent merit to the appeal. Defendant went to the police station voluntarily to inquire about his motorcycle. The statements he made while there were admitted at trial without objection, and the issue we are asked to rule on was not raised below. Defendant was never in custody during the period in question.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Defendant has squarely raised a question of first impression: Is a “jailhouse interrogation” presumptively custodial under the provisions of the Vermont Constitution, ch. I, art. 10, thereby requiring prophylactic “Miranda warnings” by police officials?

Neither party, however, has presented any substantive analysis or argument on this question. This constitutes inadequate briefing, and we decline to address the state constitutional question presented in this case. State v. Taylor, 145 Vt. 437, 439, 491 A.2d 1034, 1035 (1985). Moreover, even if the issue had been properly briefed, there is no apparent merit to the appeal. Defendant went to the police station voluntarily to inquire about his motorcycle. The statements he made while there were admitted at trial without objection, and the issue we are asked to rule on was not raised below. Defendant was never in custody during the period in question.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 A.2d 796, 146 Vt. 649, 1985 Vt. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lafountain-vt-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack