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

• Berlinda Gonzales, the Defendant, made statements to law enforcement under circumstances that led to a legal dispute over their admissibility. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Defendant was in custody and whether she had been provided with Miranda warnings prior to being questioned by the police.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Suppressed statements made by Berlinda Gonzales on the grounds that she was in custody and not given Miranda warnings.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): The State's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but it is implied that the State appealed the district court's decision to suppress the Defendant's statements.
• Defendant-Appellee (Berlinda Gonzales): Argued that she was in custody at the time of being questioned and that she was not provided with Miranda warnings, leading to the suppression of her statements by the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court was correct in suppressing the Defendant's statements on the basis that she was in custody and not given Miranda warnings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court to suppress the statements made by Berlinda Gonzales.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Michael D. Bustamante, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's suppression of the Defendant's statements. This decision was based on the district court's acceptance of the Defendant's claims that she was in custody when questioned and that she had not been given Miranda warnings. The State's decision not to file a memorandum in opposition to the Court of Appeals' second calendar notice, which proposed to affirm the district court's decision, further supported the Court's final determination.