96 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1966–2026 12 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. Easongreen2 sentences1997“When a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court is to ‘determine whether the question is such that it may reasonably be inferred that the answer maybe self-incriminating,’ ” State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 47 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 244 (1996) (quoting State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 418 , 402 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1991)), and the claim of privilege “should be liberally construed,” Allred, 261 N.C. at 35 , 134 S.E.2d at 189 . 1997“When a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court is to ‘determine whether the question is such that it may reasonably be inferred that the answer maybe self-incriminating,’ ” State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 47 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 244 (1996) (quoting State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 418 , 402 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1991)), and the claim of privilege “should be liberally construed,” Allred, 261 N.C. at 35 , 134 S.E.2d at 189 . | 4 | 5 |
Roberts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2022“The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not self-executing.” Roberts v. U.S., 445 U.S. 552, 559 , 100 S. Ct. 1358, 1364 (1980). 2022“The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not self-executing.” Roberts v. U.S., 445 U.S. 552, 559 , 100 S. Ct. 1358, 1364 (1980). | 4 | 4 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2006Ed. 2d 121 (1966), provides that custodial interrogation must cease when a suspect indicates he wishes to remain silent. ‘At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise.’ Id. at 474, 16 L. 1997In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination gives rise to a right to the presence of counsel during custodial interrogation. 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. | 3 | 16 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences2000The Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.” Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 , 16 L. 2000The Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination “protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature.” Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761 , 16 L. | 3 | 8 |
Minnesota v. Murphygreen2 sentences2003Moreover, if respondent were granted use immunity or "protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant", id. at 426 , 104 S.Ct. at 1141 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 418 (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274, 282 (1973)), this would obviate the Fifth Amendment violation. 2003Moreover, if respondent were granted use immunity or "protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant", id. at 426 , 104 S.Ct. at 1141 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 418 (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274, 282 (1973)), this would obviate the Fifth Amendment violation. | 3 | 4 |
Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Bd.green2 sentences2022Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 108 , 81 S. Ct. 1357, 1416 (1961) (“Nevertheless, it is not and has never been the law that the privilege disallows the asking of potentially incriminatory questions or authorizes the person of whom they are asked to evade them without expressly asserting that his answers may tend to incriminate him.” (emphasis added)). 2022Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1, 108 , 81 S. Ct. 1357, 1416 (1961) (“Nevertheless, it is not and has never been the law that the privilege disallows the asking of potentially incriminatory questions or authorizes the person of whom they are asked to evade them without expressly asserting that his answers may tend to incriminate him.” (emphasis added)). | 3 | 3 |
Hoffman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2008The United States Supreme Court has directed that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination “must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L. 2008The United States Supreme Court has directed that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination “must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 , 95 L. | 2 | 3 |
Staton v. Bramegreen2 sentences2023Opinion of the Court 631 S.E.2d 41, 44 (2006) (“[A] trial judge’s ruling requiring a party to provide evidence over a Fifth Amendment objection is . . . immediately appealable.”); see also Staton v. Brame, 136 N.C. 2006See Staton v. Brame, 136 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2023See Roadway Express, Inc. v. Hayes, 178 N.C. 2023Opinion of the Court 631 S.E.2d 41, 44 (2006) (“[A] trial judge’s ruling requiring a party to provide evidence over a Fifth Amendment objection is . . . immediately appealable.”); see also Staton v. Brame, 136 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021“Such an inquiry is needed if the imposition of the criminal sanction is to best serve the goals of the substantive criminal law.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 82 , 265 S.E.2d 164, 171 (1980) (finding that the trial judge’s questions to the defendant about his prior criminal record was appropriate and that the defendant’s failure to object or assert his Fifth Amendment privilege amounted to a waiver on appeal). ¶ 25 “The trial judge may also take into account the seriousness of a particular offense when exercising its discretion to decide the minimum term to impose within STATE V. 2021“Such an inquiry is needed if the imposition of the criminal sanction is to best serve the goals of the substantive criminal law.” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 82 , 265 S.E.2d 164, 171 (1980) (finding that the trial judge’s questions to the defendant about his prior criminal record was appropriate and that the defendant’s failure to object or assert his Fifth Amendment privilege amounted to a waiver on appeal). ¶ 25 “The trial judge may also take into account the seriousness of a particular offense when exercising its discretion to decide the minimum term to impose within STATE V. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Pittmangreen2 sentences2008Pittman, 149 N.C.App. at 760 , 561 S.E.2d at 564 (holding that a parent enjoys no Fifth Amendment privilege in a juvenile proceeding). 2008Pittman, 149 N.C.App. at 760 , 561 S.E.2d at 564 (holding that a parent enjoys no Fifth Amendment privilege in a juvenile proceeding). | 2 | 2 |
McCarthy v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2004See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 , 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 424 (1969). 2004See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 , 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171 , 22 L.Ed.2d 418, 424 (1969). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1994In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that "it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation." Id. at 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct. at 1625 n. 37, 16 L.Ed.2d at 720 n. 37; see also State v. Williams, 305 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 292 S.E.2d 243, 254 , cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1056 , 103 S.Ct. 474 , 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982), reh'g denied 459 U.S. 1189 , 103 S.Ct. 839 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1983) (explaining that arguments of this sort are based 1994In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that "it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation." Id. at 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct. at 1625 n. 37, 16 L.Ed.2d at 720 n. 37; see also State v. Williams, 305 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 292 S.E.2d 243, 254 , cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1056 , 103 S.Ct. 474 , 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982), reh'g denied 459 U.S. 1189 , 103 S.Ct. 839 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1983) (explaining that arguments of this sort are based | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. North Carolina; Williams v. North Carolina; And Pinch v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences1994Ed. 2d at 720 n.37; see also State v. Williams, 305 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 292 S.E.2d 243, 254 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1056 , 74 L. 1994In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that "it is impermissible to penalize an individual for exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege when he is under police custodial interrogation." Id. at 468 n. 37, 86 S.Ct. at 1625 n. 37, 16 L.Ed.2d at 720 n. 37; see also State v. Williams, 305 N.C. 656, 673-74 , 292 S.E.2d 243, 254 , cert, denied, 459 U.S. 1056 , 103 S.Ct. 474 , 74 L.Ed.2d 622 (1982), reh'g denied 459 U.S. 1189 , 103 S.Ct. 839 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1983) (explaining that arguments of this sort are based | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2026Difficulties arise “when a witness is presented and then refuses to testify by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege” because “it permits the party calling the witness to build or support his case out of improper speculation or inferences that the jury may draw from the witness’ exercise of the privilege, which cannot be adequately corrected by trial court instruction.” Pickens, 346 N.C. at 639 , 488 S.E.2d at 168 . 2026Difficulties arise “when a witness is presented and then refuses to testify by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege” because “it permits the party calling the witness to build or support his case out of improper speculation or inferences that the jury may draw from the witness’ exercise of the privilege, which cannot be adequately corrected by trial court instruction.” Pickens, 346 N.C. at 639 , 488 S.E.2d at 168 . | 1 | 5 |
Allred v. Gravesgreen2 sentences1997“When a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court is to ‘determine whether the question is such that it may reasonably be inferred that the answer maybe self-incriminating,’ ” State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 47 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 244 (1996) (quoting State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 418 , 402 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1991)), and the claim of privilege “should be liberally construed,” Allred, 261 N.C. at 35 , 134 S.E.2d at 189 . 1997“When a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court is to ‘determine whether the question is such that it may reasonably be inferred that the answer maybe self-incriminating,’ ” State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 47 , 468 S.E.2d 232, 244 (1996) (quoting State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 418 , 402 S.E.2d 809, 813 (1991)), and the claim of privilege “should be liberally construed,” Allred, 261 N.C. at 35 , 134 S.E.2d at 189 . | 1 | 3 |
Staton v. Bramegreen2 sentences2023App. 170, 176 , 523 S.E.2d 424, 428 (1999) (reversing the trial court’s order compelling defendant’s testimony in a civil action where defendant asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination). 2006App. 170 , 523 S.E.2d 424 (1999) (reversing trial court’s order compelling Defendant’s testimony in civil action where Defendant asserted Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination). | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016First, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a witness, by taking the stand, waives the Fifth Amendment privilege on cross-examination “with regard to ‘matters raised by [the witness’s] own testimony on direct examination.’ ” Id. at_, 777 S.E.2d at 144 (alteration in original) (quoting Brown, 356 U.S. at 156 , 2 L. 2016First, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a witness, by taking the stand, waives the Fifth Amendment privilege on cross-examination “with regard to ‘matters raised by [the witness’s] own testimony on direct examination.’ ” Id. at_, 777 S.E.2d at 144 (alteration in original) (quoting Brown, 356 U.S. at 156 , 2 L. | 1 | 2 |
Colorado v. Springgreen2 sentences2016"The Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege." Spring, 479 U.S. at 574 , 107 S.Ct. at 857 , 93 L.Ed.2d at 966 . 2016"The Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege." Spring, 479 U.S. at 574 , 107 S.Ct. at 857 , 93 L.Ed.2d at 966 . | 1 | 2 |
Lefkowitz v. Turleygreen2 sentences2003Moreover, if respondent were granted use immunity or "protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant", id. at 426 , 104 S.Ct. at 1141 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 418 (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274, 282 (1973)), this would obviate the Fifth Amendment violation. 2003Moreover, if respondent were granted use immunity or "protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant", id. at 426 , 104 S.Ct. at 1141 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 418 (quoting Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274, 282 (1973)), this would obviate the Fifth Amendment violation. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2002In United States v. Nobles, the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is an intimate and personal one .... [I] t adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 150-51 (1975). 2002In United States v. Nobles, the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is an intimate and personal one .... [I] t adheres basically to the person, not to information that may incriminate him.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 150-51 (1975). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. William J. Vandettigreen2 sentences2000Id. at 640 , 488 S.E.2d at 168 . 1997In Vandetti , the court noted that the Sixth Circuit had previously allowed the calling of a witness who indicated he would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege where “ ‘the prosecutor’s case would be seriously prejudiced by a failure to offer him as a witness.’ ” Vandetti, 623 F.2d at 1147 (quoting United States v. Kilpatrick, 477 F.2d 357, 360 (6th Cir. 1973)) (The court recognized in footnote that most of the federal circuit courts hold it is not error for the judge to disallow such testimony of a witness). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dietzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Charles H. Keating, Jr. v. Office of Thrift Supervisiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Creative Consumer Concepts, Inc. v. Kreislergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re the Investigation of the Death of Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hill v. Coxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herndon v. Herndongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thibodeauxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Buchanangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brogan v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alexandergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Edmondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Securities & Exchange Commission v. Zimmermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vincent Coppola v. Ronald L. Powell, Etc.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Emspak v. United States
green
2 sentences2022Emspak, 349 U.S. at 194 , 75 S. Ct. at 690 . ¶ 88 Since Mr. Lindberg never invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, the trial court could not have sanctioned him for such invocation, as he now argues. 2022Emspak, 349 U.S. at 194 , 75 S. Ct. at 690 . ¶ 88 Since Mr. Lindberg never invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination, the trial court could not have sanctioned him for such invocation, as he now argues. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Cantwell v. Cantwell
green
2 sentences2006This Court held that she could properly assert the Fifth Amendment as a basis for not tes *173 tifying regarding the alleged adultery, but that she could not maintain her alimony claim if she refused to testify. 109 N.C. 2000App. 395 , 427 S.E.2d 129 (1993), where the defendant in a divorce action, seeking alimony, invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege when her husband sought to prove she had been unfaithful to him. | 3 | 2000–2006 |
State v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2022Id. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2021GUERRERO 2021-NCCOA-457 Opinion of the Court the presumptive range.” Johnson, 265 N.C. 2021GUERRERO 2021-NCCOA-457 Opinion of the Court the presumptive range.” Johnson, 265 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
McKillop v. Onslow County
green
2 sentences2015"The finder of fact in a civil cause may use a witness' invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to infer that his truthful testimony would have been unfavorable to him." McKillop, 139 N.C.App. at 63 -64 , 532 S.E.2d at 601 . 2015"The finder of fact in a civil cause may use a witness' invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to infer that his truthful testimony would have been unfavorable to him." McKillop, 139 N.C.App. at 63 -64 , 532 S.E.2d at 601 . | 2 | 2006–2015 |
In Re Mudd
green
2 sentences1999The court held that the defendant’s original waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege in prior examinations constituted a waiver in subsequent examinations conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, in which the trustee sought details of the defendant’s previous testimony, “unless revealing those details would further incriminate him or subject him to new areas of incrimination.” Id. at 431 . 1999The court held that the defendant's original waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege in prior examinations constituted a waiver in subsequent examinations conducted pursuant to Rule 2004, in which the trustee sought details of the defendant's previous testimony, " unless revealing those details would further incriminate him or subject him to new areas of incrimination." Id. at 431 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Buchanan v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1998Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 422-23 , 97 L. 1998Buchanan, 483 U.S. at 422-23 , 97 L. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
| Gilbert v. California green | 2 | 1968–1975 |
| United States v. Wade green | 2 | 1968–1975 |
State v. Gaskill
green
2 sentences1975Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ; Gilbert v. California [ 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967)]; United States v. Wade [ 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)]; State v. Gaskill, 256 N.C. 652 , 124 S.E.2d 873 ; Annotation: Accused's Right to Counsel under the Federal Constitution, 18 L.Ed.2d 1420 . 1975Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 ; Gilbert v. California [ 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967)]; United States v. Wade [ 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)]; State v. Gaskill, 256 N.C. 652 , 124 S.E.2d 873 ; Annotation: Accused's Right to Counsel under the Federal Constitution, 18 L.Ed.2d 1420 . | 2 | 1968–1975 |
| Carnley v. Cochran green | 2 | 1968–1968 |
| Malloy v. Hogan green | 2 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. McKoy green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Kastigar v. United States green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| United States v. Marion green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Diaz green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Simmons v. United States green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. White green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Banks green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Berghuis v. Thompkins green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Fedoronko v. American Defender Life Insurance green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| California v. Byers green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In re Pedestrian Walkway Failure neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Board of Drainage Commissioners v. Dixon green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In Re Pedestrian Walkway Failure green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Burson v. United States green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Martinez-Gutierrez v. United States green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Christenson v. Christenson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Sloan v. Miller Building Corp. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Spiezer green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Couch v. United States green | 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.