State v. Payton (Majority, with Dissenting)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with sexual assault in the fourth degree. Defendant moved to suppress a statement that he had given, asserting that, prior to being interviewed, he had not been advised of his Miranda rights. The circuit court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the protections of Miranda applied to the circumstances surrounding Defendant’s interview by law enforcement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the necessary inquiry in this case involves a mixed question of law and fact and is an appeal not requiring the interpretation of the Court’s criminal rules with widespread ramifications.
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.