State v. Rainbolt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rainbolt

676 S.W.2d 527, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4761

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 4, 1984

DocketNo. 48988

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 676 S.W.2d 527 (State v. Rainbolt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SATZ, Presiding Judge.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals. § 547.200 RSMo Supp. 1983. We affirm.

Our review of the trial court’s ruling on this motion is limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain its finding. E.g., State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981). Once the defendant challenges the volun-tariness of his statement, the state carries the burden of proving the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., State v. Buckles, 636 S.W.2d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 1982). The state failed to carry its burden.

The state’s evidence consisted of the testimony of two police officers who interrogated the defendant, a juvenile. From the operative facts, the trial court could have found, and apparently did find, that the juvenile-defendant was in custody and the focus of the investigation at the time the police interrogation began, and, therefore, the failure of the officers to give the defendant the “Miranda warnings” violated defendant’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., State v. Larson, 623 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and STEWART, JJ., concur.

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

SATZ, Presiding Judge.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals. § 547.200 RSMo Supp. 1983. We affirm.

Our review of the trial court’s ruling on this motion is limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain its finding. E.g., State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981). Once the defendant challenges the volun-tariness of his statement, the state carries the burden of proving the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., State v. Buckles, 636 S.W.2d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 1982). The state failed to carry its burden.

The state’s evidence consisted of the testimony of two police officers who interrogated the defendant, a juvenile. From the operative facts, the trial court could have found, and apparently did find, that the juvenile-defendant was in custody and the focus of the investigation at the time the police interrogation began, and, therefore, the failure of the officers to give the defendant the “Miranda warnings” violated defendant’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., State v. Larson, 623 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and STEWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 S.W.2d 527, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 4761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rainbolt-moctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack