State v. Snethen

How courts have described this case

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

• stating the defendant raised two grounds in his motion to suppress (1) the statements were taken in violation of his Miranda rights and (2) the statements were “not voluntary”—“[t]hese are separate issues”
• observing the test is whether a defendant’s inculpatory statements “were the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice, made by the defendant at a time when his will was not overborne nor his capacity for self- determination critically impaired”
• presumption of sanity revived in formerly insane person by medical facility director’s notification that accused’s mentality was restored
• presumption of sanity revived in formerly insane person by medical facility director's notification that accused's mentality was restored
• use of confrontation between mother and the defendant stressing exoneration of the defendant’s brother constituted interrogation
• defendant had history of serious head injuries, emotional disturbance and drug abuse, was nervous and excited during admission

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).