Dixon v. Com.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that defendant was in custody because he was handcuffed and placed in a locked police car
• explaining that, before a suspect in police custody may be questioned, the Miranda warnings must be given, and a suspect's statements obtained \in violation of this rule generally will be subject to exclusion for most proof purposes in a criminal trial\
• determining that a suspect handcuffed and locked in a police car was in custody for Miranda purposes; however, explaining that “the presence of either of th[o]se factors, in the -6- absence of the other, may not result in a curtailment of freedom ordinarily associated with a formal arrest”
• appellant’s assignment of error claimed that “[t]he trial court erred and abused its discretion by not suppressing statement of defendant.”
• appellant’s assignment of error claimed that “[t]he trial court erred and abused its discretion by not suppressing statement of defendant.”
• “[W]hether a suspect is ‘in custody’ requires an objective focus, [and] the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable person in the suspect’s situation would have understood his circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).