Commonwealth v. Hugal

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, in part because he ‘‘was told he could be arrested and jailed that evening’’ if he did not meet and cooperate with officers
• holding that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, in part because he ‘‘was told he could be arrested and jailed that evening’’ if he did not meet and cooperate with officers
• stating that the warning is not required under Miranda but that the failure to give it could be a factor in determining whether custodial statements are voluntary
• finding the omission not to be error per se but a factor to be considered in determining the voluntariness of the subsequent statements
• explaining the “defendant and the young lady were separated from each other by some 25 to 30 feet”—less than the 30 to 40 feet here, see Op. at 14
• right to appointed counsel may not be excluded from advisement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).