legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Simpson CA1/1
A jury convicted defendant James D. Simpson of receiving stolen property in connection with a residential burglary. Following his arrest, defendant provided a written statement and a subsequent taped statement to police, in which he confessed to entering the residence and taking various items. On appeal, defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because his taped statement, in which he admitted stealing property from the residence, was the tainted fruit of his earlier written statement that was found to have been involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda). Defendant also contends the evidence was insufficient to prove the stolen property had a value in excess of $950. We affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale