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.
32 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2022 4 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. Buchanangreen2 sentences2009The protections of Miranda and section 7B-2101(a) apply only to custodial interrogations by law enforcement. “ ‘[I]n determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’ ” Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 827 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S. Ct. 248 , 139 L. 2009The protections of Miranda and section 7B-2101(a) apply only to custodial interrogations by law enforcement. “ ‘[I]n determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’ ” Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 827 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S. Ct. 248 , 139 L. | 9 | 10 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. 2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. | 8 | 21 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2009The Supreme Court of North Carolina [has recognized that] `in determining whether *802 a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 337, 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 826 , 828 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706 (1966); and State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 (1997)). "[U]nder Miranda , whether an 2009The Supreme Court of North Carolina [has recognized that] `in determining whether *802 a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 337, 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 826 , 828 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706 (1966); and State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 (1997)). "[U]nder Miranda , whether an | 3 | 3 |
Stansbury v. Californiagreen2 sentences2016In determining if a suspect is in custody, "the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Gaines, 345 N.C. at 662 , 483 S.E.2d at 405 (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) ). 2016In determining if a suspect is in custody, "the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Gaines, 345 N.C. at 662 , 483 S.E.2d at 405 (citing Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994) ). | 2 | 8 |
Oregon v. Mathiasongreen2 sentences2010Ed. 2d 714, 719 , 97 S. Ct. 711, 714 (1977). "[I]n determining whether a suspect was in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. 2004A person is not in custody simply because the questioning occurs at the sheriff's department or because the victim has implicated them; "the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Id. (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 , 495, 50 L. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Greenegreen2 sentences2009This inquiry requires application of "an objective test as to whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe himself to be in custody or that he had been deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way." State v. Greene, 332 N.C. 565, 577 , 422 S.E.2d 730, 737 (1992) (citations omitted). 2009This inquiry requires application of "an objective test as to whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe himself to be in custody or that he had been deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way." State v. Greene, 332 N.C. 565, 577 , 422 S.E.2d 730, 737 (1992) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2009This involves “ ‘an objective test as to whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe himself to be in custody or that he had been deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way.’ ” State v. Sanders, 122 N.C. 2003This requires the trial court to apply "`an objective test as to whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe himself to be in custody or that he had been deprived of his freedom of action in some significant way.'" State v. Sanders, 122 N.C.App. 691, 693 , 471 S.E.2d 641, 642 (1996) (quoting State v. Greene, 332 N.C. 565, 577 , 422 S.E.2d 730, 737 (1992)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Portillogreen2 sentences2017App. __, __, 787 S.E.2d 822, 828 (2016) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 2017App. ----, ----, 787 S.E.2d 822 , 828, appeal dismissed , --- N.C. ----, 792 S.E.2d 785 (2016) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Marrerogreen1 sentence2017App. __, __, 789 S.E.2d 560, 564 (2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “[O]ur Supreme Court has held the definitive inquiry in determining whether an individual is in custody for purposes of Miranda is, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Portillo, __ N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Keohanegreen2 sentences2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q 2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q 2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hippsgreen2 sentences2009“The rule in Miranda applies only when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 396 , 501 S.E.2d 625, 637 (1998) (citing State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997)). “[I]n determining whether a suspect is in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 338 , 543 S.E.2d 823, 827 (2001) (quotation omitted 2009“The rule in Miranda applies only when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 396 , 501 S.E.2d 625, 637 (1998) (citing State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997)). “[I]n determining whether a suspect is in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 338 , 543 S.E.2d 823, 827 (2001) (quotation omitted | 1 | 1 |
State v. Golphingreen2 sentences2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q 2009Accordingly, ... we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions `reflect[] a correct application of [law] to the facts found.' In doing so, this Court must look first to the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and second to the effect those circumstances would have on a reasonable person." State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004) (quoting State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 409 , 533 S.E.2d 168, 201 (2000)) and citing Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383, 394 (1995) (internal q | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brewingtongreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. 2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McNeillgreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. 2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
King v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. 2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. | 13 | 1998–2022 |
Gaines v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. 2022Ed. 2d 383, 394 (1995). ¶ 12 This State’s Supreme Court summarized the application of Miranda in custodial interrogations as such: “in determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L. | 11 | 2001–2022 |
Holmes v. United States
green
2 sentences2009The protections of Miranda and section 7B-2101(a) apply only to custodial interrogations by law enforcement. "`[I]n determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.'" Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 827 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2 2009The protections of Miranda and section 7B-2101(a) apply only to custodial interrogations by law enforcement. “ ‘[I]n determining whether a suspect [is] in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’ ” Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 338 , 543 S.E.2d at 827 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 662 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 405 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S. Ct. 248 , 139 L. | 5 | 1998–2010 |
In re the Appeal of Colonial Pipeline
green
2 sentences2021Cf. In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 318 N.C. 224, 229 , 233–235 (1986) (finding no error in Commission’s approval of the Department of Revenue’s refusal to deduct from valuation opinion for true value an amount attributable to economic obsolescence where taxpayer’s expert adjusted valuation by 25.36% on the grounds that investors were demanding a rate of return in the market of 14% for similar investments but taxpayer’s rate of return was limited to 10.45% by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). ¶ 62 Accordingly, the Commission’s conclusion to this effect, while supported by the County’s expert 2021Cf. In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 318 N.C. 224, 229 , 233–235 (1986) (finding no error in Commission’s approval of the Department of Revenue’s refusal to deduct from valuation opinion for true value an amount attributable to economic obsolescence where taxpayer’s expert adjusted valuation by 25.36% on the grounds that investors were demanding a rate of return in the market of 14% for similar investments but taxpayer’s rate of return was limited to 10.45% by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). ¶ 62 Accordingly, the Commission’s conclusion to this effect, while supported by the County’s expert | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Portillo
neutral
1 sentence2017App. ----, ----, 787 S.E.2d 822 , 828, appeal dismissed , --- N.C. ----, 792 S.E.2d 785 (2016) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2012In challenging the admission of Special Agent Bayler’s testimony that the substance seized from his residence was cocaine, Defendant asserts, in reliance upon State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), in which the Supreme Court held that prescription medications could not be identified as controlled substances based solely on a visual examination, and State v. James, _N.C. 2012In challenging the admission of Special Agent Bayler’s testimony that the substance seized from his residence was cocaine, Defendant asserts, in reliance upon State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), in which the Supreme Court held that prescription medications could not be identified as controlled substances based solely on a visual examination, and State v. James, _N.C. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2009“This is an objective test, based upon a reasonable person standard, and is to be applied on a case-by-case basis considering all the facts and circumstances.” State v. Jones, 153 N.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Buchanan
green
2 sentences2009“The rule in Miranda applies only when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 396 , 501 S.E.2d 625, 637 (1998) (citing State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997)). “[I]n determining whether a suspect is in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 338 , 543 S.E.2d 823, 827 (2001) (quotation omitted 2009“The rule in Miranda applies only when a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 396 , 501 S.E.2d 625, 637 (1998) (citing State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997)). “[I]n determining whether a suspect is in custody, an appellate court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; but the definitive inquiry is whether there was a formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 338 , 543 S.E.2d 823, 827 (2001) (quotation omitted | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Muniz-Herrera v. United States
green
1 sentence2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Robbins v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2001Ed. 2d 177 (1997); see also Brewington, 352 N.C. at 499 , 532 S.E.2d at 502 (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”); State v. McNeill, 349 N.C. 634, 644 , 509 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1998) (definitive inquiry is whether there was a “formal arrest or *339 a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest”), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838 , 145 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.