State v. Birkla

21 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. State

    Docket No. 39067 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 2, 2013)

    Osborne, 130 Idaho at 369-70, 941 P.2d at 341-42. We further noted in Osborne that the facts were similar to those in State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 887 P.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1994) and Medrano, 123 Idaho 114, 844 P.2d 1364, in which this Court also held the respective defendants were not in custody for Miranda purposes. In Birkla, an officer asked the defendant to accompany him to the police station to answer questions regarding a suspected sexual assault and placed the defendant in a room the defendant thought was locked.

  2. State v. Wilske

    Docket No. 38298 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012)

    In any case, that questioning occurs in a somewhat isolated room, even when that room is in a police station, does not establish the setting was custodial. For example, in State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 887 P.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1994), the defendant was asked to accompany an officer to the police station to answer questions concerning criminal allegations. Once at the station, the defendant was questioned in an interview room by a single detective.

  3. State v. Kuzmichev

    132 Idaho 536 (Idaho 1999)   Cited 17 times

    The determination of whether police were required to provide Miranda warnings is a mixed one of law and fact. The trial court's findings of fact underlying the totality of the circumstances are reviewed for clear error, but application of constitutional standards to those facts is given free review. State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 501, 887 P.2d 43, 46 (Ct.App. 1994). B. Analysis

  4. State v. Osborne

    130 Idaho 365 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Recognizing that evidence supporting a jury verdict can be substantial despite the presence of conflicting evidence in the record

    Detective Hunsaker testified that he did not read Osborne the Miranda warning because, "Mr. Osborne was not in custody." The facts of this case are similar to those in the previous decision of this Court in State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 887 P.2d 43 (Ct.App. 1994). In Birkla, an officer asked the suspect to accompany him to the police station to answer questions and then placed the suspect in a room which the suspect thought was locked.

  5. State v. Middleton

    220 W. Va. 89 (W. Va. 2006)   Cited 23 times
    In Middleton, this Court indicated that, rather than awarding a criminal defendant duplicate credit for time, courts have uniformly held that, when consecutive sentences are imposed for two or more offenses, periods of presentence incarceration may be credited only against the aggregate of all terms imposed.

    See State v. Potter, 197 W. Va. 734, 478 S.E.2d 742 (1996) (finding defendant not in custody after voluntarily going to police station to be questioned); State v. Honaker, 193 W. Va. 51, 454 S.E.2d 96 (1994) (same).See also Johnson v. State, 673 So.2d 796 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995) (finding defendant was not in custody at time he voluntarily went to police station for questioning, so as to require Miranda warnings); Belts v. State, 799 P.2d 325 (Alaska Ct.App. 1990) (same); State v. Spencer, 319 Ark. 454, 892 S.W.2d 484 (1995) (same); People v. Stansbury, 9 Cal.4th 824, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394, 889 P.2d 588 (1995) (same); State v. Lapointe, 237 Conn. 694, 678 A.2d 942 (1996) (same); Brown v. State, 658 So.2d 1166 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1995) (same); State v. Walker, 204 Ga.App. 1, 418 S.E.2d 384 (1992) (same); State v. Sugimoto, 62 Haw. 259, 614 P.2d 386 (1980) (same); State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 887 P.2d 43 (1994) (same); People v. Asteri, 196 Ill.App.3d 885, 144 Ill.Dec. 20, 554 N.E.2d 1059 (1990) (same); Sevion v. State, 620 N.E.2d 736 (lnd.Ct.App. 1993) (same); State v. Jones, 246 Kan. 214, 787 P.2d 726 (1990) (same); State v. Jackson, 362 So.2d 1082 (La. 1978) (same); State v. Glenner, 513 A.2d 1361 (Me. 1986) (same); Commonwealth v. Jung, 420 Mass. 675, 651 N.E.2d 1211 (1995) (same); People v. Wasson, 31 Mich.App. 638, 188 N.W.2d 55 (1971) (same); State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. 1993) (same); State v. Rorvik, 224 Mont. 104, 728 P.2d 419, 421 (1986) (same); State v. Brunzo, 248 Neb. 176, 532 N.W.2d 296 (1995) (same); State v. Marshall, 148 NJ. 89, 690 A.2d 1 (1997) (same); People v. Pristell, 204 A.D.2d 801, 612 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1994) (same); State v. Daughtry, 340 N.C. 488, 459 S.E.2d 747, 755 (1995) (same); State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 678 N.E.2d 891 (1997) (same); State v. Hickam, 71 Or.App. 471, 692 P.2d 672 (1984) (same); Commonwealth v. Schoellhammer, 308 Pa.Super. 360, 454 A.2d

  6. Ray v. State

    133 Idaho 96 (Idaho 1999)   Cited 59 times
    Discussing that in a plea agreement, waiver of constitutional rights "will be upheld if the entire record demonstrates the waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently"

    As the Idaho Court of Appeals stated, the fact that questioning takes place in a police station does not necessarily mean that a party is in custody. State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 501-502, 887 P.2d 43, 46-47 (Ct.App. 1994). Similarly, in Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714 (1977) the United States Supreme Court found that a voluntary appearance at the police station, followed by questions, did not amount to a deprivation of freedom of action in a significant way. Recently, this Court held in State v. Loosli, 130 Idaho 398, 941 P.2d 1299 (1997) that the trial court correctly denied a motion to suppress a confession where the police had left several messages for the defendant in an attempt to contact and question him and the police picked the defendant up and took him to the police station.

  7. State v. Hergesheimer

    Docket No. 41284 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 23, 2014)

    The trial court's findings of fact underlying the totality of the circumstances are reviewed for clear error, but application of constitutional standards to those facts is given free review. State v. Kuzmichev, 132 Idaho 536, 542-44, 976 P.2d 462, 468-70 (1999); Silva, 134 Idaho at 854, 11 P.3d at 50; State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 501, 887 P.2d 43, 46 (Ct. App. 1994). The requirement for Miranda warnings is triggered by custodial interrogation.

  8. State v. Hergesheimer

    Docket No. 41284 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2014)

    The trial court's findings of fact underlying the totality of the circumstances are reviewed for clear error, but application of constitutional standards to those facts is given free review. State v. Kuzmichev, 132 Idaho 536, 542-44, 976 P.2d 462, 468-70 (1999); Silva, 134 Idaho at 854, 11 P.3d at 50; State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 501, 887 P.2d 43, 46 (Ct. App. 1994). The requirement for Miranda warnings is triggered by custodial interrogation.

  9. State v. Ortiz-Perez

    Docket No. 39487 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 12, 2013)

    "When a trial court's application of this balancing test is challenged on appeal, we examine the decision for an abuse of discretion." State v. Salazar, 153 Idaho 24, 27, 278 P.3d 426, 429 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 500, 887 P.2d 43, 45 (Ct. App. 1994)). On appeal, Ortiz-Perez argues that evidence of his drug use was "an attempt to bias the jury against Mr. Ortiz-Perez."

  10. McCall v. State

    Docket No. 39271 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 25, 2012)   Cited 2 times

    The district court did not explicitly make a finding of fact that McCall's evidence of signaling while pulling into traffic on the 600 block was irrelevant to the suppression motion. However, the failure to make explicit findings of fact is not fatal. State v. Birkla, 126 Idaho 498, 501, 887 P.2d 43, 46 (Ct. App. 1994). Instead, we examine the record to determine the implicit findings which underlie the district court's order.