Idaho Court of Appeals· 7/17/1997
State v. Doe
Citations
- 948 P.2d 166
- 130 Idaho 811
- 1997 Ida. App. LEXIS 90
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ruling that objective test applied to in custody determination for Miranda purposes, “but with additional elements ... including ... the presence of a parent or other supportive adult”
- holding that it was “unlikely that any ten-year-old would feel free to simply leave” when questioned by an SRO or school authorities
- holding that it was “unlikely that any ten-year-old would feel free to simply leave” when questioned by an SRO or school authorities
- fifth-grade student summoned and interviewed by school resource officer in faculty room of school was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda
- juvenile was in custody when “[n]o parent or other adult concerned with Doe’s best interest was present during the questioning”
- juvenile was in custody when “[n]o parent or other adult concerned with Doe’s best interest was present during the questioning”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lansing, Walters, Perry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- J. D. B. v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 2011-06-16· cited 563×
- In re L.M.Court of Appeals of Texas· 1999-04-15· cited 86×
- State v. JamesIdaho Supreme Court· 2010-01-27· cited 55×
- In Re Interest of Tyler F.Nebraska Supreme Court· 2008-09-05· cited 55×
- Michael Alvarado v. R.Q. Hickman, Warden, Acting Warden of Mule Creek State PrisonNinth Circuit· 2002-12-18· cited 46×
- State v. DominguezIdaho Court of Appeals· 2002-07-23· cited 28×
- State v. SamuelIdaho Supreme Court· 2019-09-11· cited 28×
- In the Interest of R.H.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-02-21· cited 28×
- State v. DoeIdaho Supreme Court· 2002-07-10· cited 27×
- State v. FrankIdaho Court of Appeals· 1999-07-20· cited 25×
- State v. DoeIdaho Court of Appeals· 1998-07-02· cited 24×
- In re I.J.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2005-10-13· cited 24×
- People v. Joseph R.California Court of Appeal· 1998-07-28· cited 22×
- State v. FabenyIdaho Court of Appeals· 1999-06-10· cited 18×
- J.D. v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 2004-01-28· cited 18×
- State v. Doris Nepa HaysIdaho Court of Appeals· 2015-10-14· cited 12×
- In Re Jorge D.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2002-04-09· cited 10×
- State v. ThurmanIdaho Court of Appeals· 1999-12-21· cited 8×
- Woodward v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals· 2005-07-18· cited 8×
- State v. MooreIdaho Supreme Court· 2022-08-31· cited 7×
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court· 1967-05-15· cited 5,473×
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court· 1984-07-02· cited 4,856×
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court· 1985-03-04· cited 2,824×
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court· 1977-01-25· cited 2,680×
- Stansbury v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1994-04-26· cited 2,603×
- California v. BehelerSupreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 2,048×
- Miller v. FentonSupreme Court· 1985-12-03· cited 1,743×
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court· 1979-10-01· cited 1,729×
- New York v. QuarlesSupreme Court· 1984-06-12· cited 1,468×
- Haynes v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1963-05-27· cited 1,403×
- Haley v. OhioSupreme Court· 1948-01-19· cited 1,069×
- Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court· 1962-06-25· cited 716×
- State v. WhiteleyIdaho Court of Appeals· 1993-07-09· cited 99×
- State v. PierceIdaho Court of Appeals· 1984-06-19· cited 93×
- State v. MyersIdaho Court of Appeals· 1990-07-20· cited 89×
- State v. RhoadesIdaho Supreme Court· 1991-02-13· cited 77×
- State v. MedranoIdaho Court of Appeals· 1992-12-04· cited 68×
- State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. LoredoCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1993-12-22· cited 37×
- State v. D.R.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1997-01-30· cited 34×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.