Court Opinion

ID: 9542406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:50.041067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:50.609082
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 29] Under the facts of this case, I agree with the result reached by the majority opinion. I write separately to note that insofar as the majority opinion may appear to rely on the fact Conley was the “focus” of the investigations as the reason to require the Miranda warnings, we have clearly held that “[m]ere investigatory focus does not require the giving of the Miranda warnings.” State v. Fields, 294 N.W.2d 404, 406 (N.D.1980).
[¶ 30] Some of the cases from other jurisdictions, cited in the majority opinion, such as State v. Deases, 518 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Iowa 1994), do note the defendant “was the only inmate involved- ... and promptly became a suspect ...,” I do not understand that recitation to be any more than one factor in determining whether “a reasonable *577person would have believed himself to be in custody.” Id. at 790.
[¶ 31] Dale V. Sandstrom