Pinkston v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Pinkston's convictions, holding that the Superior Court properly denied his untimely motion to suppress, was not required to instruct the jury on the voluntariness of his statements, and did not plainly err by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding his drug use. The suppression claim was untimely and unsupported by exceptional circumstances, the judge—not the jury—determines statement admissibility, and Pinkston showed neither plain error nor prejudice concerning the limiting instruction.