State v. Nobles

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Nobles

835 P.2d 1281, 122 Idaho 470, 1992 Ida. LEXIS 132

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 9, 1992

Docket19390

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 835 P.2d 1281 (State v. Nobles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Nobles, 835 P.2d 1281, 122 Idaho 470, 1992 Ida. LEXIS 132 (Idaho 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Justice.

William Mann Nobles, III, appealed the trial court’s denial of Nobles’ motion to suppress. We assigned the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. State v. Nobles, 122 Idaho 509, 835 P.2d 1320 (App.1991). We granted Nobles' request for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

We have reviewed and considered the briefs, the record, the transcript, and the Court of Appeals’ opinion. We have also listened to and considered the oral arguments presented to us. We concur with the Court of Appeals’ decision with an additional rationale that supports their decision.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had found that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer was voluntary and, therefore, that the second confession was not the fruit of a poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court implicitly found that Nobles gave both confessions voluntarily because of the trial court’s conclusion that under the “totality of the circumstances” the second confession was admissible.

We conclude that the trial court’s implicit finding of voluntariness is further demonstrated by the trial court’s statement that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer could be used for impeachment. The use of this confession would have been admissible to impeach Nobles only if the confession were voluntary, although it was given without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); see also State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 884, 891, 673 P.2d 1074, 1078, 1085 (Ct.App.1983).

BAKES, C.J., BISTLINE and McDEVITT, JJ., and CAREY, J. Pro Tem., concur.

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

JOHNSON, Justice.

William Mann Nobles, III, appealed the trial court’s denial of Nobles’ motion to suppress. We assigned the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. State v. Nobles, 122 Idaho 509, 835 P.2d 1320 (App.1991). We granted Nobles' request for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision.

We have reviewed and considered the briefs, the record, the transcript, and the Court of Appeals’ opinion. We have also listened to and considered the oral arguments presented to us. We concur with the Court of Appeals’ decision with an additional rationale that supports their decision.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had found that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer was voluntary and, therefore, that the second confession was not the fruit of a poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court implicitly found that Nobles gave both confessions voluntarily because of the trial court’s conclusion that under the “totality of the circumstances” the second confession was admissible.

We conclude that the trial court’s implicit finding of voluntariness is further demonstrated by the trial court’s statement that Nobles’ confession to his parole officer could be used for impeachment. The use of this confession would have been admissible to impeach Nobles only if the confession were voluntary, although it was given without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971); see also State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 884, 891, 673 P.2d 1074, 1078, 1085 (Ct.App.1983).

BAKES, C.J., BISTLINE and McDEVITT, JJ., and CAREY, J. Pro Tem., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 P.2d 1281, 122 Idaho 470, 1992 Ida. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nobles-idaho-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack