voluntariness inquiry in North Dakota

6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Thomas Ervin Payne, United States of America v. Christopher Fostergreen ca8 · 1997 · cited in 3 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2016 2 sentences 2016While Miranda warnings are a factor to consider under the voluntariness test, United States v. Payne, 119 F.3d 637, 643-44 (8th Cir.1997) the lack of a Miranda warning, by itself, does not invalidate a consent to search. 2016While Miranda warnings are a factor to consider under the voluntariness test, United States v. Payne , 119 F.3d 637, 643-44 (8th Cir. 1997) the lack of a Miranda warning, by itself, does not invalidate a consent to search.	3	3
United States v. Ruth Lee, United States of America v. Michael Sandmeyergreen ca8 · 2003 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016United States v. Lee, 356 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir.2003). 2016United States v. Lee , 356 F.3d 831, 834 (8th Cir. 2003).	2	2
State v. Goebelgreen nd · 2007 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	1
State v. Goebelgreen nd · 2007 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	1
State v. Arredondogreen ariz · 1974 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977 2 sentences 1977The record of the hearing supports the conclusion of the trial court that the statements of the defendant were voluntarily made.” State v. Arredondo, 111 Ariz. 141 , 526 P.2d 163, 166-167 (1974). 1977The record of the hearing supports the conclusion of the trial court that the statements of the defendant were voluntarily made.” State v. Arredondo, 111 Ariz. 141 , 526 P.2d 163, 166-167 (1974).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Crabtree green nd · 2008 2 sentences 2014A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: ‘(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.’ ” State v. Crabtree, 2008 ND 174, ¶ 12 , 756 N.W.2d 189 (citations omitted). [¶ 28] Looking at the totality of the facts, we conclude Rogers’ confession was voluntary. 2014A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: ‘(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.’ ” State v. Crabtree, 2008 ND 174, ¶ 12 , 756 N.W.2d 189 (citations omitted). [¶ 28] Looking at the totality of the facts, we conclude Rogers’ confession was voluntary.	1	2014–2014
Colorado v. Connelly green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 , 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
State v. Syvertson green nd · 1999 2 sentences 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 , 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
Culombe v. Connecticut green scotus · 1961 2 sentences 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 , 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
State v. Discoe green nd · 1983 1 sentence 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
State v. Pickar green nd · 1990 1 sentence 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 , 2008A voluntariness inquiry focuses on two elements: “(1) the characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of the confession and (2) the details of the setting in which the confession was obtained.” Pickar, 453 N.W.2d at 785 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Discoe, 334 N.W.2d at 467-68 ); see also Goebel, 2007 ND 4, ¶ 16 , 725 N.W.2d 578 ; State v. Syvertson, 1999 ND 134, ¶ 20 ,	1	2008–2008
Lego v. Twomey green scotus · 1972 2 sentences 1977Since Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972) the burden of proof in a voluntariness hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence. 1977Since Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 , 92 S.Ct. 619 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972) the burden of proof in a voluntariness hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence.	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

TX 134 (1974–2026) AZ 122 (1964–2026) NY 76 (1965–2026) CA 63 (1978–2026) AL 59 (1973–2024) MN 59 (1978–2026) TN 51 (1969–2026) PA 49 (1975–2026) IL 49 (1975–2025) MD 47 (1963–2025) IN 42 (1975–2024) FL 38 (1971–2021) CO 37 (1971–2026) OH 37 (1984–2025) MS 37 (1985–2025) MA 37 (1976–2026) GA 32 (1978–2025) NJ 32 (1967–2026) ME 31 (1976–2024) WA 27 (1976–2026) IA 26 (1974–2023) MI 26 (1969–2025) KS 23 (1983–2025) LA 22 (1977–2014) OR 20 (1970–2023) WI 20 (1978–2025) HI 17 (1964–2025) CT 16 (1978–2022) NC 14 (1968–2018) AR 14 (1980–2010) VT 13 (1984–2023) DC 13 (1981–2022) VA 12 (1992–2024) KY 12 (1994–2025) SC 12 (1996–2024) MO 10 (1973–2017) WV 10 (1977–2026) DE 9 (1967–2025) NM 9 (1978–2021) UT 9 (1986–2019) MT 8 (1988–2024) SD 8 (1981–2025) WY 8 (1995–2021) ID 7 (1985–2023) NE 7 (1985–2025) AK 6 (1987–2020) ND 6 (1977–2016) RI 5 (1985–2013) NV 5 (1980–2022) NH 4 (1984–2021) OK 4 (1972–1995)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check