State v. Noriega, 2
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Citation | 6 Ariz.App. 428,433 P.2d 281 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CR,2 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Roy Rivera NORIEGA, Appellant. 102. |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1967 |
Page 281
v.
Roy Rivera NORIEGA, Appellant.
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.
KRUCKER, Judge.
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.
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
-
Cummings v. State, 1015
...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
...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
...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 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......