State v. Peterson, 267 P.3d 1197

Peterson was convicted by jury of theft of means of transportation and sentenced to probation for two years with restitution of $1,392.
On appeal she challenges the denial of a suppression hearing, and the admissibility of certain trial evidence over hearsay/confrontation objections, plus the restitution calculation.
Linda V. was delivering newspapers when her truck was attemptedly stolen; she testified Peterson did not steal the truck.
Police later encountered a man named Jeffrey and a truck with belongings; the truck was later determined to be stolen.
Detectives Miranda-warned Peterson and questioned her; she made inculpatory statements after the warning.
Peterson moved to suppress her statements as involuntary and as Miranda-violative; the trial court denied the motions; the conviction stands pending review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a suppression hearing on Miranda grounds was error	Peterson invokes Miranda rights and requests a hearing	State contends merits-only ruling; no hearing needed	Remanded for a suppression hearing on Miranda and voluntariness
Whether voluntariness requires a hearing to determine if statements were involuntary	Voluntariness merits a hearing after timely objection	State contends no hearing needed beyond suppression review	Entitled to a voluntariness-hearing; remand accordingly

State v. Szpyrka, 220 Ariz. 59, 202 P.3d 524 (Ariz. 2008) (clear invocation of right to silence; test is objective; duty to honor invocation)
State v. Stanley, 167 Ariz. 519, 809 P.2d 944 (Ariz. 1991) (review standard for suppression rulings; abuse-of-discretion with de novo legal review)
State v. Newell, 212 Ariz. 389, 132 P.3d 833 (Ariz. 2006) (legal conclusions de novo in suppression context)
State v. Montes, 136 Ariz. 491, 667 P.2d 191 (Ariz. 1983) (distinguishes separate grounds for suppression; invocation of rights)
State v. Finehout, 136 Ariz. 226, 665 P.2d 570 (Ariz. 1983) (ambiguity of invocation; clarifying questions permitted)
State v. Jessen, 134 Ariz. 458, 657 P.2d 871 (Ariz. 1982) (remains relevant to voluntariness and suppression)
State v. Simoneau, 98 Ariz. 2, 401 P.2d 404 (Ariz. 1965) (remand for suppression proceedings respects timely appellate review)
State v. Diaz, 223 Ariz. 358, 224 P.3d 174 (Ariz. 2010) (remand for limited proceedings to resolve suppression issues)
State v. Tannahill, 100 Ariz. 59, 411 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1966) (remand procedure in voluntariness/suppression context)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, U.S. 560, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010) (Ambiguous silence and clarifying questions doctrine)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) (mandatory invocation of rights; questioning must cease upon invocation)