holding that, when law enforcement officials testified appellant appeared to comprehend warnings and questions, trial court did not abuse discretion in concluding appellant not intoxicated and waiver of Miranda rights not involuntary.
How later courts described this case
- holding that, when law enforcement officials testified appellant appeared to comprehend warnings and questions, trial court did not abuse discretion in concluding appellant not intoxicated and waiver of Miranda rights not involuntary.
- finding that a photograph of an organ that had been removed from the victim’s body, depicting bruising that Ripkowski inflicted during the offense, was not unduly prejudicial and was highly relevant to the manner of death
- stating that photographs were highly relevant to the manner of death because they showed bruising or other damage that was attributable to the defendant=s actions but not externally visible
- noting that determination regarding whether questioning constituted custodial interrogation is mixed question of law and fact, that appellate courts defer to trial court findings turning on evaluation of credibility and demeanor, and that appellate courts review de novo application of law to facts that do not depend on credibility and demeanor
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MEYERS, J.
filed a dissenting opinion,
joined by PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ.