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 case revolves around the Defendant's motion to suppress statements made to the police, arguing that the Miranda warning provided was inadequate. The Defendant was given a Miranda warning before being questioned by a detective, which he acknowledged by initialing and signing an advisement of rights. Despite this, the Defendant contended that the warning did not sufficiently convey his right to counsel prior to questioning, leading to the motion to suppress his statements.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress his statements on the basis that the Miranda warning was inadequate, and later denied the State's motion to reconsider.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the Miranda warning given to the Defendant was adequate under the precedent set by State v. Serna and sought to preserve the issue for appeal in anticipation of a potential reversal of State v. Atencio, which held a similar warning inadequate.
• Defendant: Contended that the Miranda warning was inadequate as it did not explicitly or implicitly convey the Defendant's right to counsel prior to questioning, supporting the motion to suppress the statements made to the police.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Miranda warning provided to the Defendant adequately conveyed his right to the presence of an attorney prior to and during his custodial interview with law enforcement.

Disposition

• The district court's orders granting the Defendant's motion to suppress and denying the State's motion to reconsider were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per ATTREP, J. (BOGARDUS and HENDERSON, JJ., concurring): The court examined the adequacy of the Miranda warning provided to the Defendant, comparing it to precedents set in State v. Atencio and State v. Serna. The court found that the warning, similar to the one in Serna, failed to convey explicitly or implicitly the Defendant's right to counsel prior to questioning. The use of the word "while" in the warning was determined to restrict the right to counsel to the duration of questioning, not extending it to before the questioning began. Despite the State's argument that the warning's language sufficiently conveyed the right to have an attorney present from the moment of advising, the court disagreed, concluding that the warning did not meet the requirements set forth in Miranda v. Arizona to adequately inform the Defendant of his rights. This led to the affirmation of the district court's decision to grant the motion to suppress the Defendant's statements (paras 2-9).