GILES

v.

ARKANSAS

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• United States v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1986)
  …iness” for consent cases is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Schnecklotk v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 227 [93 S.Ct. at 2047]; United States v. Sor-Lokken, 557 F. 2d 755, 757 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 894 [98 S.Ct. 274, 54 L.Ed.2d 181] (1977). In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court’s finding of fact must be accepted by this court unless clearly erroneous, United States v. Cooper, 733 F. 2d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.1984), with the…
• Collins v. A.L. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1985)
  …in the statute § 41-4711. (As a matter of state law, nonstatutory aggravating circumstances may not be considered, though nonstatutory mitigating circumstances may be. Giles v. State, 261 Ark. 413, 420, 549 S.W. 2d 479, 483 (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 894, 98 S.Ct. 272, 54 L.Ed.2d 180 (1977)). In Collins’s case, as we have previously noted, three aggravating circumstances were found. One of them was that “the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.” § 41-4711(e). There is no doubt that this…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• United States v. Augustin Alonso Lopez, 777 F.2d 543 (10th Cir. 1985)
  …ess” for consent eases is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2047-48; United States v. Sor-Lokken, 557 F. 2d 755, 757 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 894, 98 S.Ct. 274, 54 L.Ed.2d 181 (1977). In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court’s finding of fact must be accepted by this court unless clearly erroneous, United States v. Cooper, 733 F. 2d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.1984), with the…