State v. Showalter

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Showalter

615 P.2d 278, 94 N.M. 663

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 31, 1980

Docket4640

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 615 P.2d 278 (State v. Showalter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico 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. Showalter, 615 P.2d 278, 94 N.M. 663 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

This appeal by the State from the trial court’s suppression of defendant’s statements was placed on a limited calendar. When the brief in chief was due, the State filed a motion for summary disposition.

In its memorandum, the State recited that “[t]he Defendant requested counsel but this request was ignored by [the] police who proceeded with continuous interrogation for an hour or an hour and a half.” This was improper. In Fare v. Michael C.,-U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the United States Supreme Court, quoting from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), reaffirmed the procedure to be followed when an individual asks for an attorney:

If [a suspect in custody] indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.

* ‡ s|s %

If the individual states he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

Because the police ignored defendant’s request for an attorney and continued the interrogation, the trial court properly suppressed the statements.

The suppression is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

This appeal by the State from the trial court’s suppression of defendant’s statements was placed on a limited calendar. When the brief in chief was due, the State filed a motion for summary disposition.

In its memorandum, the State recited that “[t]he Defendant requested counsel but this request was ignored by [the] police who proceeded with continuous interrogation for an hour or an hour and a half.” This was improper. In Fare v. Michael C.,-U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979), the United States Supreme Court, quoting from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966), reaffirmed the procedure to be followed when an individual asks for an attorney:

If [a suspect in custody] indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.

* ‡ s|s %

If the individual states he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.

Because the police ignored defendant’s request for an attorney and continued the interrogation, the trial court properly suppressed the statements.

The suppression is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 P.2d 278, 94 N.M. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-showalter-nmctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack