State v. Stuck

In State v. Stuck, 154 Ariz. 16, 21, 739 P.2d 1333, 1338 (App. 1987) the Court held that statements made to police officers "in the hope of winning some concessions" are not statements made "in connection with" a plea agreement for purposes of Rule 410. The court in Stuck agreed with the court's decision in State v. Sweet, 143 Ariz. 289,693 P.2d 944, 949 (App. 1984), vacated in part on other grounds, 143 Ariz. 266, 693 P.2d 921 (1985), in which the Court held that statements the defendant had made to police officers upon arrest about "a robbery that occurred at his house, ownership of the seized contraband, and the possibility of making a deal with the authorities whereby he could work off his charge by helping the police make a drug buy" were not statements "made in connection with any plea agreements and they did not fall under Rule 410."