Criminal Practice — Confession – First Impression – Surrender Negotiations

When sheriff’s deputies went to defendant’s home to arrest him for statutory rape and indecent liberties, defendant locked himself in his bedroom and threatened suicide. Defendant was not “in custody” while deputies negotiated his safe exit from his bedroom, so the lack of Miranda warnings did not require the trial court to suppress a confession – to possessing methamphetamine – that defendant made during the negotiations.

We remand one judgment for correction of a clerical error. Otherwise, we find no error in defendant’s convictions of statutory rape of a child by an adult, five counts of indecent liberties with a child, two counts of statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, and possession of methamphetamine.

At the time of the negotiations, defendant was not under formal arrest. Law enforcement cannot be expected to issue Miranda warnings when attempting to arrest an individual. Miranda warnings are only required once an arrest has been made or law enforcement is able to exercise a degree of control equivalent to a formal arrest. Defendant’s actions prevented the deputies from placing defendant under formal arrest or exercising any degree of control equivalent to a formal arrest.

Because defendant had barricaded himself in the bedroom and refused to exit, defendant was not in custody. Thus, we need not reach the issue of whether the deputies’ conversation with defendant amounted to “interrogation,” as defendant argues, because defendant was never in custody; therefore, Miranda warnings were not required.

State v. Conner (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-119-22, 9 pp.) (Fred Gore, J.) (Hunter Murphy, J., concurring in result only without separate opinion) Appealed from McDowell County Superior Court (Steve Warren, J.) Tamika Henderson for the state; Drew Nelson for defendant. 2022-NCCOA-295