State v. Rhodes

Louisiana Court of Appeal

State v. Rhodes

449 So. 2d 1381, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8705

Louisiana Court of Appeal·Decided May 14, 1984·No. No. K 1355·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WARD, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent.

I would grant the State’s application. The totality of circumstances presented in the transcript of the suppression hearing shows that the State satisfied the Tague requirement that it affirmatively show that the defendants waived their rights. State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 454-56 (La.1983); State v. Harper, 430 So.2d 627, 633 (La.1983). Furthermore, the time which elapsed between the giving of the Miranda warnings and the questioning at the station was insufficient to warrant a finding that the defendants did not knowingly waive their rights when they made their statements.

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

WARD, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent.

I would grant the State’s application. The totality of circumstances presented in the transcript of the suppression hearing shows that the State satisfied the Tague requirement that it affirmatively show that the defendants waived their rights. State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 454-56 (La.1983); State v. Harper, 430 So.2d 627, 633 (La.1983). Furthermore, the time which elapsed between the giving of the Miranda warnings and the questioning at the station was insufficient to warrant a finding that the defendants did not knowingly waive their rights when they made their statements.

State v. Rhodes, 449 So. 2d 1381, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8705 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

449 So. 2d 1381 (State v. Rhodes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

I dissent.

Related