stating that a “late-blooming claim [challenging] an indictment for failure to charge an offense” is reviewable for plain error
How later courts described this case
- stating that a “late-blooming claim [challenging] an indictment for failure to charge an offense” is reviewable for plain error
- stating that when plain error is alleged, the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial
- noting that the heightened expectation of privacy in one’s residence generally demands that law enforcement obtain a warrant prior to entering a home or dwelling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ZINTER, Justice
(concurring).
[¶ 54.] I concur, except that with respect to Issue 2, the questioning went beyond general on-the-scene questioning. Nevertheless, the trial court’s findings of *71 historical fact regarding Bowker’s custodial status were not clearly erroneous, and the trial court did not err in concluding that suppression was not required.