Court of Appeals of Maryland· 6/8/2004
State v. Tolbert
Citations
- 850 A.2d 1192
- 381 Md. 539
- 2004 Md. LEXIS 303
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the precustodial Miranda warnings were \sufficiently proximate in time and place to custodial status to inform\ the defendant of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, and thus readministration of the rights was not required
- circuit court suppressed confession based upon a Miranda violation and a finding that the confession was involuntary; Court of Appeals addressed both grounds, holding that the court erred in suppressing the confession on each ground
- “In Maryland, when the State intends to use a confession ... given by the defendant to the police during custodial interrogation, the prosecution must, upon proper challenge, establish ... that the statement satisfies the mandate of Miranda v. Arizona.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bell, Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Battaglia, Eldridge
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. RogersTennessee Supreme Court· 2006-02-17· cited 97×
- Rush v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2008-01-11· cited 66×
- Lee v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2011-01-31· cited 57×
- Thomas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2012-10-26· cited 23×
- Prioleau v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2009-12-09· cited 21×
- McCain v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2010-09-03· cited 16×
- Portillo Funes v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2020-06-30· cited 15×
- Lee v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2009-07-07· cited 12×
- Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2015-12-18· cited 12×
- Lincoln v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-09-14· cited 10×
- Harper v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2005-04-28· cited 9×
- State v. RushCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2007-04-27· cited 9×
- Moody v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2013-01-23· cited 9×
- State v. MilledgeNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 2006-06-15· cited 5×
- Grimm v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2017-04-26· cited 5×
- Madrid v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2020-10-01· cited 4×
- Ford v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2017-12-20· cited 1×
- Covel v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2023-07-07
Cites
25 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×
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court· 1986-12-10· cited 4,016×
- Culombe v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1961-06-19· cited 1,662×
- Wyrick v. FieldsSupreme Court· 1982-11-29· cited 424×
- State v. RupeWashington Supreme Court· 1984-06-07· cited 299×
- Riddick v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1990-04-11· cited 173×
- Hillard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1979-10-05· cited 136×
- State v. BradshawWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1995-03-27· cited 123×
- United States v. Roger NordlingNinth Circuit· 1986-11-25· cited 117×
- Winder v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-01-09· cited 110×
- United States v. Leo Tom HopkinsFifth Circuit· 1970-12-17· cited 91×
- Lodowski v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1986-08-22· cited 91×
- David Jarrell v. Charles Balkcom, WardenEleventh Circuit· 1984-06-20· cited 90×
- Hoey v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-02-05· cited 83×
- State v. RuckerCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2003-04-14· cited 81×
- State v. BurgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-02-12· cited 67×
- White v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2003-04-15· cited 44×
- PEOPLE of the TERRITORY OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward R.C. DELA PENA, Defendant-AppellantNinth Circuit· 1995-12-27· cited 43×
- Hughes v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court· 2002-08-22· cited 38×
- State v. MonroeSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1998-06-11· cited 27×
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.