AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor. The case involves a statement made by the Defendant to the police during an interview, which he later sought to suppress, arguing that he was not free to leave and that the police intended to arrest him regardless of his statement. The police contended that the Defendant was not in custody and was free to leave at any time during the interview.

Procedural History

• District Court, 2008: The Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because he was not free to leave during the interview, as the police had already decided to arrest him and were waiting for an incriminating statement.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the Defendant was not in custody during the interview, was free to leave at any time, and that there was no evidence in the record to suggest that the police intended to arrest him regardless of his statement.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant’s statement to the police should have been suppressed on the grounds that he was not free to leave during the interview.
• Whether the merger of the two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor violated the Defendant’s protection against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court to vacate one of the convictions and resentence the Defendant.
• The Court affirmed the denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to the police.

Reasons

Per Sutin J. (Fry C.J. and Garcia J. concurring):

• The Court found that the merger of the two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor violated the Defendant’s protection against double jeopardy. Both parties agreed that one of the convictions should be vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing.
• Regarding the motion to suppress, the Court held that the Defendant was not in custody during the police interview. The record showed that the Defendant was free to leave at any time, and there was no evidence to support the claim that the police intended to arrest him regardless of his statement. The Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress for the reasons stated in its prior notices.