UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
LINUS ROY POITRA, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1981-10-12
No. 81-1739
Before HEANEY, HENLEY and McMIL-LIAN, Circuit Judges.
661 F.2d 98 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court's findings regarding the voluntariness of the oral confession were not clearly erroneous and therefore the confession was properly admitted into evidence.


Facts & Procedural History

Linus Roy Poitra was convicted of burglary. He moved to suppress an oral confession, alleging law enforcement promised no prosecution in exchange for …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Linus Roy Poitra was convicted of burglary in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 1153, as defined by the North Dakota Burglary Statute, sections 12.1-22-02 and 12.1-32-01 of the North Dakota Century Code. He was sentenced to a five-year term of incarceration. On appeal, his sole contention is that his oral confession was improperly admitted into evidence at his trial because the law enforcement officers who interviewed him had promised him that if he confessed, he would not be prosecuted. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on this issue prior to trial and found:

the Miranda Warnings were given to him, the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination, the defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to have retained or appointed counsel at the interrogation and the oral confession was freely and voluntarily made and that there were not any inducements or promises made to him which caused him to make the oral confession.

It denied Poitra’s motion to suppress the evidence as to his confession.

We have carefully reviewed the record and hold that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. Two law enforcement officers testified at the hearing to suppress that they were present when the confession was given by Poitra and that he was not told that if he confessed, he would not be prosecuted. Poitra testified to the contrary. It was for the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We will not disturb its findings. The conviction of Poitra is affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw