Wolliston v. State

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, despite the fact that the interrogation occurred in his own home, because the defendant was confronted with the presence of illegal drugs and was not informed that he was free to leave
• holding that defendant was in custody, despite the fact that the interrogation occurred in his own home, because the defendant was confront ed with the presence of illegal drugs and was not informed that he was free to leave
• finding defendant to be “in custody,” despite still being in his home, where he “had already been confronted with the presence of cocaine and had not been informed that he was free to leave”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).