State v. Noriega, 2

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
Citation6 Ariz.App. 428,433 P.2d 281
Docket NumberNo. 2,CA-CR,2
PartiesThe STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Roy Rivera NORIEGA, Appellant. 102.
Decision Date13 November 1967

Page 281

433 P.2d 281
6 Ariz.App. 428
The STATE of Arizona, Appellee,
Roy Rivera NORIEGA, Appellant.
No. 2 CA-CR 102.
Court of Appeals of Arizona.
Nov. 13, 1967.
Review Denied Jan. 23, 1968.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

S. Jeffrey Minker, Tucson, for appellant.


Appellant Roy Rivera Noriega was charged and tried for the crime of Burglary, Second Degree. The sole question presented by this appellant is that the trial court erred in finding that statements made by the defendant to a police officer were voluntary statements and allowing the statements to be presented to the jury.

The facts briefly stated are that a home located on North Dodge was burglarized on September 26, 1966 around noon; that an eye witness saw two men prying open a kitchen window and entering the house; that another witness living three doors east identified the defendant as a man running in an easterly direction from the burglarized premises.

The following day a police officer interviewed the defendant at defendant's home with his family present, stating that he first read to the defendant from a card which advised the defendant of his constitutional rights and that defendant stated that he had been with one Robert Bracamonte, a co-defendant, the day before at approximately 12:30 p.m. The co-defendant, Robert Bracamonte, 1 without identifying the defendant, Noriega, testified that he had gone to the house with another person and that he had gone into the house through the window; that the owner had come home unexpectedly; that he went to his car and that the other individual ran down the street in an easterly direction. At the start of the officer's testimony the court excused the jury and took testimony in the absence of the jury concerning the voluntariness of the confession and whether or not the defendant, Noriega, had been fully advised of his rights.

Defendant took the witness stand in this hearing as to voluntariness and stated that he did not remember being advised of his rights on previous occasions. Testimony concerning this was as follows:

Q. Are you aware of that card, that he has a card?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware he has that card; do you know he has a card?

A. Yes, I know he has a card.

[6 Ariz.App. 429]

Page 282

Q. Have you ever heard that card--has anybody ever read that card to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what it says on it?

A. No.

Q. They have read it to you?

A. They read it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Cummings v. State, 1015
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 1975
    ...indicative of non-custodial interrogation. Archer v. United States, 393 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1968) (suspect's husband); State v. Noriega, 6 Ariz.App. 428, 433 P.2d 281 (1967) (suspect's family); State v. Tellez, 6 Ariz.App. 251, 431 P.2d 691 (1967) (suspect's friends); Stout v. State, 244 Ark......
  • State v. Hodges, 58882
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Louisiana
    • June 20, 1977
    ...Simon v. United States, 421 F.2d 667 (CA9 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 904, 90 Page 257 S.Ct. 1691, 26 L.Ed.2d 62; State v. Noriega, 6 Ariz.App. 428, 433 P.2d 281 (1967); People v. Fischetti, 47 Ill.2d 92, 264 N.E.2d 191 (1970); State v. McDonald, Iowa, 190 N.W.2d 402 (1971); Bernos v. Sta......
  • State v. Hunt
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • October 24, 1968
    ...reasonably be considered 'the general on the scene questioning' which is permissible under Miranda. * * *' See also State v. Noriega, 6 Ariz.App. 428, 433 P.2d 281 (1967) where we held that the exclusionary rule of Miranda does not apply where the defendant was asked questions in a relaxed ......
  • State v. Travis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 31, 1968
    ...United States v. Schlinsky, 261 F.Supp. 265 (D.Mass.1966); United States v. Davis, 259 F.Supp. 496 (D.Mass.1966); State v. Noriega, 6 Ariz.App. 428, 433 P.2d 281 (1967); People v. Allen, 28 A.D.2d 724, 281 N.Y.S.2d 602 In State v. Taylor, supra, it was held that incriminating statements cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT