Robinson v. State
Annotate this CasePetitioner filed for a writ of certiorari where she was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. At issue was whether the suppression court correctly concluded that petitioner was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when she made her first two statements to police and, regardless, to the the extent any error occurred, was it harmless in light of petitioner's later statements made after she was advised of and waived her rights under Miranda? Also at issue was whether the court should refuse to disturb the decision to decline review for plain error of the trial court's answers to two notes from the jury. The court held that petitioner was not entitled to suppression of the statement that she made to a police officer at the scene of the shooting. The court also held that the state should have been prohibited from introducing into evidence during its case-in-chief the statements petitioner subsequently gave to two other police officers where the statements were the product of a custodial interrogation that did not comply with Miranda. Accordingly, the second issue was moot.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.