AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was charged with auto burglary and entered a no contest plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress a statement made to the police. The Defendant argued that his statement was not voluntarily made due to alleged coercion with promises of leniency and claimed his waiver of rights was not knowing and intelligent because he was under the influence of methamphetamines at the time of the statement.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statement made to police should have been suppressed because it was not voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently made. The Defendant contended he was coerced with promises of leniency and was under the influence of methamphetamines, impairing his ability to waive his constitutional rights under Miranda.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant's statement was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made, noting testimony from Detective Whitaker who stated he did not promise the Defendant anything and observed no indication that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs at the time of the interview.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's statement to police should have been suppressed on the grounds that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his constitutional rights under Miranda.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress the statement made to police.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring): The Court found the district court had the liberty to reject the Defendant's assertion of coercion and to resolve the evidentiary conflict in favor of the State, as the finder of fact. The Court also determined there was adequate support for the district court's finding that the Defendant's statement was knowingly and intelligently made, based on testimony that the Defendant appeared cognitively okay, responded properly to questions, and showed no signs of drug influence at the time of the interview. The Court emphasized that it does not re-weigh evidence on appeal and defers to the district court's factual findings when substantial evidence supports those findings (paras 1-4).