State v. Cureton Even if defendant’s IQ (82) and his past mental problems placed him in the “gray area” of defendants under Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) -- those who are competent to stand trial but may not be competent to represent themselves – neither U.S. Supreme Court precedent nor N.C. law prohibits a trial court from finding that a gray-area defendant has forfeited his right to counsel through his abusive actions toward his appointed attorneys.

Tagged with: miranda

State v. Braswell Since traffic stops are not “custodial interrogations,” they are not subject to the mandates of Miranda. Therefore, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress (1) the statements he made before being advised of his Miranda rights and (2) the results of his field sobriety tests that were performed before defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.

Tagged with: Criminal Practice dwi miranda traffic stop

State v. Braswell Since traffic stops are not “custodial interrogations, they are not subject to the mandates of Miranda. Therefore, the trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests.

Tagged with: appeals Criminal Practice dwi miranda

State v. Garcia Defendant was present at an apartment that was being searched pursuant to a warrant. Defendant’s detention during the search did not become an arrest when he was moved from the den to the bathroom for questioning or when he was read his Miranda rights prior to questioning. We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. We find no error in defendant’s conviction of trafficking in cocaine by possession.

Tagged with: Criminal Practice miranda

State v. Williams Where there was a material conflict in the evidence as to whether defendant was in custody when he made a statement that he later moved to suppress, the trial court should have made written findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.

Tagged with: Criminal Practice custody miranda

State v. Carter The aggravating factor set out in G.S. § 15A-1340.16(d)(6) applies when the offense is committed against a law enforcement officer “engaged in the performance of that person’s official duties or because of the exercise of that person’s official duties.” Since the state proved that the victim was engaged in the performance of his duties as a law enforcement officer, it did not need to show that defendant knew the victim was a law enforcement officer. We find no error in defendant’s conviction of second-degree murder.

Tagged with: Aggravating Factors Criminal Practice miranda Second-Degree Murder sentencing

To the editor: In the article “Miranda ruling: Not just for kids?” in the June 20 edition of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, I took issue with the article’s statement that “in North Carolina and a handful of other states, some teens as young as 16 can be tried as adults.”

Tagged with: juvenile miranda

The U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent-setting decision last week on Miranda standards for juveniles may extend to some adult cases, too. That’s the opinion of North Carolina defense attorneys, who say they now have a powerful opinion to point to when challenging confessions elicited from all defendants under 18. The reason: in North Carolina and a handful of other states, some teens as young as 16 can be tried as adults.

Tagged with: miranda

"You are free to leave" is a statement that seems easy enough to understand. But when those words are told to a young person at school, does the child's age make a difference under Miranda v. Arizona? That's the question the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court considered March 23 during oral arguments in J.D.B v. North Carolina. The case involves a 13-year-old special education student who was questioned by police at his Chapel Hill middle school about recent burglaries in which a digital camera and jewelry were stolen.

Tagged with: miranda Miranda Warnings miranda waiver Orange County U.S. Supreme Court

A case out of North Carolina about to go before the U.S. Supreme Court could set a precedent on whether a juvenile's age should be considered in a Miranda custody analysis. Marsha Levick (pictured), deputy director and chief counsel of the Philadelphia-based Juvenile Justice Center, said that although the question before the court is limited to age, her organization was also interested in the fact that the case involved an interrogation on school property. Levick said it was important to raise the issue of the school setting to help give the justices a context in which to view the case.

Tagged with: juvenile miranda Miranda Warnings U.S. Supreme Court