State v. Ousley, 46415
| Decision Date | 15 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 46415,46415 |
| Citation | 312 Minn. 546,254 N.W.2d 73 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Cecile OUSLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Gary W. Flakne, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Division, David W. Larson, and Phebe S. Haugen, Asst. County Attys., Lee Barry, Law Clerk, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This is a child abuse case. Defendant, who is the mother of the child in question, was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of aggravated assault, Minn. St. 609.225, subd. 2, a charge arising out of a severe beating which she and a man living with her administered to the child. 1 A charge for second-degree manslaughter, Minn. St. 609.205, arising out of the bathtub drowning death of the child about a week after the beating, was dismissed upon motion of the state when defendant was sentenced for the assault conviction. Issues raised by defendant on this appeal from judgment of conviction are (1) whether the Rasmussen court erred in refusing to suppress statements defendant made to police on two occasions, (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting photographs of the dead child showing his injuries, and (3) whether there was as a matter of law insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
Defendant's first contention is based on the fact that the investigating officer did not give her a Miranda warning when he questioned her at home on the day of the drowning. She contends that as a result of this her first statement was inadmissible and that her second statement, made at the police station several days later, was the fruit of the earlier illegal interrogation. If there were any doubts about the correctness of the Rasmussen court's ruling, and we do not believe there were, those doubts were erased by the United States Supreme Court's recent decision, in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977). There the court emphasized that the test in determining the need for a Miranda warning is not whether the interrogation has coercive aspects to it or whether the person being interrogated is a suspect, but whether the person is in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Here, defendant was not in custody nor was her freedom of action restricted in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carlson
...when the suspicion of the investigating officers began to focus on him. In light of this court's recent decision in State v. Ousley, Minn., 254 N.W.2d 73, 74 (1977), Carlson's position is without " * * * (T)he test in determining the need for a Miranda warning is not whether the interrogati......
-
State v. Herem
...declared that custody, not focus of suspicion, is the test--we have followed the custody test. See, e.g., State v. Ousley, 312 Minn. 546, 254 N.W.2d 73 (Minn.1977). In order to prevent any further confusion, we now expressly overrule the Kinn dictum.Under Berkemer's objective approach to cu......
-
State v. Sickels
...v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170 (Minn.1978), and State v. Ousley, Minn., 254 N.W.2d 73 (1977). When defendant was removed from the house and taken to the detoxification center he was being deprived of his freedom of action......
-
State v. Harris, 50153.
...Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976); Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977); State v. Ousley, 312 Minn. 546, 254 N.W.2d 73 (1977); State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170 (b) Defendant contends that his statement at the station, which was preceded by a Mir......