Defendant not in custody at beginning of interview so Miranda warnings not required yet: ALKABALA-SANCHEZ V. COM. (SC 6/19/2008)

ALKABALA-SANCHEZ V. COM.
CRIMINAL:  MIRANDA WARNINGS; Defendant not considered in custody
2006-SC-000196-MR.pdf
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
OPINION BY NOBLE; MINTON DISSENTS; SCHRODER DISSENTS W/O SEP. OP.
FAYETTE COUNTY
DATE RENDERED: 6/19/2008

SC upheld TC’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress statement and affirmed his conviction and 30 year sentence for criminal conspiracy to commit murder. Alkabala was not subject to custodial interrogation at the time he claims he was denied the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S . 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). In light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interview, SC concludes that Defendant was not in custody during the first part of the interview, and when the questions pointed to a need for Defendant to be in custody, the Miranda warnings were properly given.

MINTON DISSENTS because all of the relevant circumstances (including the presence of multiple officers, the time of day of the interview, the length of the interview, the isolation of appellant from his family members before and during questioning, and the language barrier between appellant and the officers) have caused him to conclude that Alkabala-Sanchez was in custody from the beginning of his interview with the police.

By Scott Byrd, ed.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.