Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morrellgreen2 sentences2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. 2009An argument can be made that Mr. Lyons acted as an agent of the police when he participated in their interrogation of J.D.B. by urging J.D.B. to "do the right thing" and "tell the truth." See State v. Morrell, 108 N.C.App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) ("when an accused's statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning"). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Etheridgegreen2 sentences2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. 2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nationsgreen2 sentences2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. 2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. | 2 | 2 |
Estelle v. Smithgreen2 sentences2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. 2013App. 465, 470 , 424 S.E.2d 147, 151 (1993) (noting that, when an “accused’s statements stem from custodial interrogation by one who in effect is acting as an agent of law enforcement, such statements are inadmissible unless the accused received a Miranda warning prior to questioning”) (citing State v. Etheridge, 319 N.C. 34, 44 , 352 S.E.2d 673, 679 (1987); State v. Nations, 319 N.C. 329, 331 , 354 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1987); Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 466-68 , 101 S. Ct. 1866, 1874-76 , 68 L. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McClees
neutral
2 sentences2013Ed. 2d 359, 371-72 (1981)), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 465 , 427 S.E.2d 626 . 2013Ed. 2d 359, 371-72 (1981)), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 465 , 427 S.E.2d 626 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.