State v. Smith
State v. Smith
Opinion of the Court
Robert Smith appeals his conviction by a jury of armed robbery, contending that his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to police should have been sustained because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights and did not freely and voluntarily make the statements to law enforcement officers. Defendant’s contentions are not supported by the record.
Defendant’s accomplice and lookout during the robbery implicated defendant as the armed robber. Police officers testified that when defendant was later arrested the Miranda rights were read to him. When defendant was being driven to the jail he began talking to police officers in the vehicle and was again informed of his Miranda rights and was told that he should not be making statements. When defendant reached the police station he was informed of his Miranda rights before and at the beginning of a taped conversation with po
The conviction is AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.