Dunlap v. State
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of felony murder. The court held that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his custody statements to the authorities was not erroneous where his questions regarding counsel were equivocal and did not trigger any duty on the part of the police to stop the interrogation. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant's speculation that error may have occurred, when counsel failed to have the voir dire and opening and closing statements transcribed, was insufficient to show any deficiency on the part of counsel, or prejudice therefore, and was insufficient to show reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
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.