State v. Rainbolt, 48988
Decision Date | 04 September 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 48988,48988 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Roger Dale RAINBOLT, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
George R. Westfall, Pros. Atty. by John D. Evans, Asst. Pros. Atty., Clayton, for appellant.
Granat & Wolff by Gordon D. Schweitzer, Jr., Clayton, for respondent.
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements was sustained by the trial court. The state appeals. § 547.200 RSMo Supp. 1983. We affirm.
Our review of the trial court's ruling on this motion is limited to a determination of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain its finding. E.g., State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981). Once the defendant challenges the voluntariness of his statement, the state carries the burden of proving the statement was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., State v. Buckles, 636 S.W.2d 914, 923 (Mo. banc 1982). The state failed to carry its burden.
The state's evidence consisted of the testimony of two police officers who interrogated the defendant, a juvenile. From the operative facts, the trial court could have found, and apparently did find, that the juvenile-defendant was in custody and the focus of the investigation at the time the police interrogation began, and, therefore, the failure of the officers to give the defendant the "Miranda warnings" violated defendant's constitutional rights. See, e.g., State v. Larson, 623 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Blair, 66352
...the evidence is sufficient to sustain its finding. Giffin, supra; State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981); State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Mo.App.1984). Police discovered a murder on November 24, 1981; the only evidence found was a palm print. On January 22, 1982, an inf......
-
Brown v. State
...evidence is sufficient to sustain its findings. Giffin, supra; State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981); State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Mo.App.1984)." to the order challenged on appeal. See State v. Giffin, 640 S.W.2d 128, 130 About the first of these principles, there i......
-
State v. Ikerman, 50116
...of whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain its finding. State v. Baskerville, 616 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo.1981); State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Mo.App.1984). We Defendant was involved in a traffic accident on January 18, 1985, when his car collided with another. When a policeman......
-
State v. Pippenger, WD
...court may have done before in another cause. There is no doubt that evidence must be heard on a motion to suppress. State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Nichols, 628 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Mo.App.1982). It is a statutory requirement that the trial court "shall receive ev......