STATE OF LOUISIANA v. RICSHAD KING (2026)

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion granting the writ application, reversing the trial court's ruling granting defendant's motion to suppress, and denying defendant's motion to suppress. The trial court made a credibility determination after viewing the video and found that “I noted in the video that [defendant's Miranda rights were] read to him. At no point did [defendant] waive his rights to Miranda.” The video demonstrates that after defendant was read his Miranda rights, one officer told defendant that signing the Miranda form indicated that defendant understood his rights, while another officer followed up by stating that defendant's signature indicated defendant's understanding that the officer had read defendant his rights. Thus, it is not clear from the video whether defendant's signing of the Miranda form was an assent that he understood his rights or that he simply understood that the officers had read him his rights. Furthermore, immediately after the officers read defendant his Miranda rights and before defendant was asked to sign the form, defendant asked if he was under arrest. The officer who had read defendant his Miranda rights explained to defendant that he was not under arrest and asked defendant if he understood and defendant replied that he did understand. Thus, is also unclear if defendant's verbal response was an indication that he understood his rights or if he understood he was not under arrest. Given the great deference that is to be accorded a trial court's credibility determinations by a reviewing court, I would deny the State's writ application.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.