voir dire hearing in North Carolina

2017See State v. Lane , 334 N.C. 148 , 154, 431 S.E.2d 7 , 10 (1993) ("The trial court's findings of fact following a voir dire hearing are binding on this Court when supported by competent evidence." (citation omitted)).

2017See State v. Lane , 334 N.C. 148 , 154, 431 S.E.2d 7 , 10 (1993) ("The trial court's findings of fact following a voir dire hearing are binding on this Court when supported by competent evidence." (citation omitted)).

2016"Our review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is strictly limited to determining whether the trial court's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and whether those factual findings in turn support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law." State v. Robinson, 221 N.C.App. 509 , 517-18, 729 S.E.2d 88 , 96 (2012) (citation omitted). "[T]he trial court's findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of a [defendant's custodial statement] are conclusive and binding on [this Court] if supported by competent evidence." State v.

2016"Our review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress is strictly limited to determining whether the trial court's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and whether those factual findings in turn support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law." State v. Robinson, 221 N.C.App. 509 , 517-18, 729 S.E.2d 88 , 96 (2012) (citation omitted). "[T]he trial court's findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of a [defendant's custodial statement] are conclusive and binding on [this Court] if supported by competent evidence." State v.

1998State v. Rook, 304 N.C. 201, 212 , 283 S.E.2d 732, 740 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1038 , 72 L.

1998State v. Rook, 304 N.C. 201, 212 , 283 S.E.2d 732, 740 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1038 , 72 L.

1996“The trial court’s findings of fact following a voir dire hearing on the voluntariness of a confession are conclusive on appeal if they are supported by competent evidence in the record.” State v. Massey, 316 N.C. 558, 573 , 342 S.E.2d 811, 820 (1986).

1996“The trial court’s findings of fact following a voir dire hearing on the voluntariness of a confession are conclusive on appeal if they are supported by competent evidence in the record.” State v. Massey, 316 N.C. 558, 573 , 342 S.E.2d 811, 820 (1986).

1996Application of this totality test is based upon scrutiny of the “ ‘findings of fact made by the trial judge following a voir dire hearing on the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession [which are] conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence in the record.’ ” State v. Richardson, 316 N.C. 594, 598-99 , 342 S.E.2d 823, 827 (1986) (quoting State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 39 , 320 S.E.2d 670, 674 (1984)).

1996Application of this totality test is based upon scrutiny of the “ ‘findings of fact made by the trial judge following a voir dire hearing on the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession [which are] conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence in the record.’ ” State v. Richardson, 316 N.C. 594, 598-99 , 342 S.E.2d 823, 827 (1986) (quoting State v. Baker, 312 N.C. 34, 39 , 320 S.E.2d 670, 674 (1984)).

2016See Morgan, 315 N.C. at 643 , 340 S.E.2d at 94-95 . 3 As discussed in Part II of this opinion, Defendant was not entitled to a no duty to retreat instruction, because he was not within his home or curtilage when he fatally shot Epps. 4 By contrast, when the State objected to a similar line of questioning during the direct examination of defense witness Michael Gregory, defense counsel did request a voir dire hearing outside the presence of the jury. 5 N.C.

2016See Morgan, 315 N.C. at 643 , 340 S.E.2d at 94-95 . 3 As discussed in Part II of this opinion, Defendant was not entitled to a no duty to retreat instruction, because he was not within his home or curtilage when he fatally shot Epps. 4 By contrast, when the State objected to a similar line of questioning during the direct examination of defense witness Michael Gregory, defense counsel did request a voir dire hearing outside the presence of the jury. 5 N.C.

1969It has been held by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the recent case of State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53 , that when there is conflicting evidence offered at a voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of a confession, the trial judge must make findings of fact, not just conclusions, to show the basis of his ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered.

1969It has been held by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the recent case of State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53 , that when there is conflicting evidence offered at a voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of a confession, the trial judge must make findings of fact, not just conclusions, to show the basis of his ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered.

2000“The trial court’s findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of [a] confession are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts when supported by competent evidence.” State v. Davis, 305 N.C. 400, 410 , 290 S.E.2d 574, 581 (1982).

2000“The trial court’s findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of [a] confession are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts when supported by competent evidence.” State v. Davis, 305 N.C. 400, 410 , 290 S.E.2d 574, 581 (1982).

1995“The trial court’s findings of fact following a voir dire hearing are binding on this [C]ourt when supported by competent evidence.” Lane, 334 N.C. at 154 , 431 S.E.2d at 10 (citing State v. Mahaley, 332 N.C. 583, 592 , 423 S.E.2d 58, 64 (1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L.

1995“The trial court’s findings of fact following a voir dire hearing are binding on this [C]ourt when supported by competent evidence.” Lane, 334 N.C. at 154 , 431 S.E.2d at 10 (citing State v. Mahaley, 332 N.C. 583, 592 , 423 S.E.2d 58, 64 (1992), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 130 L.

2012State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). “[T]he trial court’s findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of a confession are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts if supported by competent evidence.

2012State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). “[T]he trial court’s findings of fact after a voir dire hearing concerning the admissibility of a confession are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts if supported by competent evidence.

1993When the admissibility of statements made pursuant to such a waiver is questioned, the trial court must conduct a voir dire hearing to determine whether the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.

1993When the admissibility of statements made pursuant to such a waiver is questioned, the trial court must conduct a voir dire hearing to determine whether the procedural safeguards required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.

1995State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549 , 304 S.E.2d 134 (1983); see also State v. [Rook], 304 N.C. 201 , 283 S.E.2d 732 (1981).

1995State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549 , 304 S.E.2d 134 (1983); see also State v. [Rook], 304 N.C. 201 , 283 S.E.2d 732 (1981).

1978In State v. Riddick, 291 N.C. 399, 408-09 , 230 S.E. 2d 506, 512-13 (1976), Justice Huskins, speaking for this Court, aptly stated the law on this point: “The general rule is that the trial judge, at the close of the voir dire hearing, should make findings of fact to show the bases of his ruling.

1978In State v. Riddick, 291 N.C. 399, 408-09 , 230 S.E. 2d 506, 512-13 (1976), Justice Huskins, speaking for this Court, aptly stated the law on this point: “The general rule is that the trial judge, at the close of the voir dire hearing, should make findings of fact to show the bases of his ruling.

1974In State v. Strickland, 276 N.C. 253, 261 , 173 S.E. 2d 129, 134 (1970), a case in which defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, Justice Branch, speaking for the Court, stated: “It is the law in this State ‘that in-custody statements attributed to a defendant, when offered by the State and objected to by the defendant, are inadmissible for any purpose unless, after a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury, the court, based upon sufficient evidence, makes factual findings that such statements were voluntarily and understanding

1974In State v. Strickland, 276 N.C. 253, 261 , 173 S.E. 2d 129, 134 (1970), a case in which defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, Justice Branch, speaking for the Court, stated: “It is the law in this State ‘that in-custody statements attributed to a defendant, when offered by the State and objected to by the defendant, are inadmissible for any purpose unless, after a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury, the court, based upon sufficient evidence, makes factual findings that such statements were voluntarily and understanding

1988Cf. State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306 , 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1972) (trial court’s failure to conduct voir dire and make specific findings of fact concerning suggestiveness of photographic lineup deemed harmless error); State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328 , 163 S.E. 2d 353 (1968) (same result where suggestiveness of live lineup involved).

1988Cf. State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306 , 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1972) (trial court’s failure to conduct voir dire and make specific findings of fact concerning suggestiveness of photographic lineup deemed harmless error); State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328 , 163 S.E. 2d 353 (1968) (same result where suggestiveness of live lineup involved).

1983State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561 , 180 S.E.2d 755 (1971), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 , 94 S.Ct. 157 , 38 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973). "[T]he question whether a consent to a search was in fact `voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-48 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 862-63 (1973); accord, State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151 , 293 S.E.2d 569 (1982).

1983State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561 , 180 S.E.2d 755 (1971), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 , 94 S.Ct. 157 , 38 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973). "[T]he question whether a consent to a search was in fact `voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 , 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-48 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 862-63 (1973); accord, State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151 , 293 S.E.2d 569 (1982).

2011The State should move "to . . . impeach its own witness by proof of his prior inconsistent statements"; (2) the motion should be made as soon as the prosecutor is surprised; (3) the motion "is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court"; (4) the preliminary questions of whether the prosecutor is surprised and misled as to the witness' expected testimony on a material fact is to be determined in a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury; and (5) "[i]f the trial judge finds that the State should be allowed to offer prior inconsistent statements, his findings should also specify th

2011The State should move "to . . . impeach its own witness by proof of his prior inconsistent statements"; (2) the motion should be made as soon as the prosecutor is surprised; (3) the motion "is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court"; (4) the preliminary questions of whether the prosecutor is surprised and misled as to the witness' expected testimony on a material fact is to be determined in a voir dire hearing in the absence of the jury; and (5) "[i]f the trial judge finds that the State should be allowed to offer prior inconsistent statements, his findings should also specify th

2006"The general rule is that, at the close of a voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of a defendant's confession, the presiding judge should make findings of fact to show the basis of his ruling." Lang, 309 N.C. at 520 , 308 S.E.2d at 321 .

2006"The general rule is that, at the close of a voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of a defendant's confession, the presiding judge should make findings of fact to show the basis of his ruling." Lang, 309 N.C. at 520 , 308 S.E.2d at 321 .

1989Defendant relies on State v. Biggs, 289 N.C. 522 , 223 S.E. 2d 371 (1976) to argue the trial court was required to hold a voir dire hearing.

1989Defendant relies on State v. Biggs, 289 N.C. 522 , 223 S.E. 2d 371 (1976) to argue the trial court was required to hold a voir dire hearing.

1978State v. Tuggle, 284 N.C. 515 , 201 S.E. 2d 884 (1974).

1978State v. Tuggle, 284 N.C. 515 , 201 S.E. 2d 884 (1974).

1978However, this Court has held as a matter of State law that “when the admissibility of a confession is challenged on the ground that it was induced by improper means, the trial judge is required to determine the question of fact whether it was or was not voluntary before he permits it to go to the jury.” State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390, 396 , 64 S.E. 2d 572, 576 (1951).

1978However, this Court has held as a matter of State law that “when the admissibility of a confession is challenged on the ground that it was induced by improper means, the trial judge is required to determine the question of fact whether it was or was not voluntary before he permits it to go to the jury.” State v. Rogers, 233 N.C. 390, 396 , 64 S.E. 2d 572, 576 (1951).

1982During such a voir dire hearing, the State must satisfy the trial court of the following: (1) That the recorded testimony was legally obtained and otherwise competent; (2) that the mechanical device was capable of recording testimony and that it was operating properly at the time the statement was recorded; (3) that the operator- was competent and operated the machine properly; (4) the identity of the recorded voices; (5) the accuracy and authenticity of the recording; (6) that defendant’s entire statement was recorded and no changes, additions, or deletions have since been made; and (7) the c

1982During such a voir dire hearing, the State must satisfy the trial court of the following: (1) That the recorded testimony was legally obtained and otherwise competent; (2) that the mechanical device was capable of recording testimony and that it was operating properly at the time the statement was recorded; (3) that the operator- was competent and operated the machine properly; (4) the identity of the recorded voices; (5) the accuracy and authenticity of the recording; (6) that defendant’s entire statement was recorded and no changes, additions, or deletions have since been made; and (7) the c

2004Our Supreme Court has held that if evidence presented "clearly supports a conclusion that the witness is competent, the trial court's failure to conduct a voir dire inquiry and make specific findings and conclusions concerning the witness's competency is, at worst, harmless error." Id. at 555 , 364 S.E.2d at 372 .

2004Our Supreme Court has held that if evidence presented "clearly supports a conclusion that the witness is competent, the trial court's failure to conduct a voir dire inquiry and make specific findings and conclusions concerning the witness's competency is, at worst, harmless error." Id. at 555 , 364 S.E.2d at 372 .