Brown test in North Carolina

2022COBB 2022-NCSC-57 Opinion of the Court ¶ 21 Under the second prong of the Brown analysis, the trial court examined “the degree to which the seizure advance[d] the public interest.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 51 , 99 S. Ct. at 2640 , 61 L.

2022COBB 2022-NCSC-57 Opinion of the Court ¶ 21 Under the second prong of the Brown analysis, the trial court examined “the degree to which the seizure advance[d] the public interest.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 51 , 99 S. Ct. at 2640 , 61 L.

2011“The trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress contained adequate findings of fact, supported by competent evidence, to satisfy the three prongs of the Brown test.” Id. at — ,- S.E.2d at —.

2011“The trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to suppress contained adequate findings of fact, supported by competent evidence, to satisfy the three prongs of the Brown test.” Id. at — ,- S.E.2d at —.

2026App. 67, 76 (2017) (quoting Brown, 356 U.S. at 155 ); see Herndon, 386 N.C. at 831 (defendant taking stand during her case-in-chief in DVPO hearing was considered “voluntary witness” under Brown standard).

2015Ed. 2d 416, 427 (1975). “[T]he Brown test does not require that each of the factors set forth be resolved in favor of the Government,” U.S. v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 549 (4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted), but rather, this analysis requires a “careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case,” U.S. v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 36 L.

2015Ed. 2d 416, 427 (1975). “[T]he Brown test does not require that each of the factors set forth be resolved in favor of the Government,” U.S. v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 549 (4th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted), but rather, this analysis requires a “careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case,” U.S. v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 554 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 36 L.

2014See, e.g., State v. Rinck, 303 N.C. 551, 555-60 , 280 S.E.2d 912, 916-20 (1981) (holding that circumstances supporting a reasonable basis for a stop included the defendants walking along a road at an “unusual hour” of approximately 1:35 a.m.); State v. Blackstock, 165 N.C.

1990We apparently used this revised Thompson test in Trexler when we said, "[w]e need not rely upon the Parker rule for here there is evidence aliunde defendant's confession touching on the corpus delicti which when considered with other evidence tends to support a finding that the charged crime occurred." State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. at 533 , 342 S.E.2d at 881 . *827 Although we used the pre- Brown test in Trexler , we said we were using the Brown test.

1990We apparently used this revised Thompson test in Trexler when we said, "[w]e need not rely upon the Parker rule for here there is evidence aliunde defendant's confession touching on the corpus delicti which when considered with other evidence tends to support a finding that the charged crime occurred." State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. at 533 , 342 S.E.2d at 881 . *827 Although we used the pre- Brown test in Trexler , we said we were using the Brown test.

1990In State v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 343 , 346 S.E.2d 596 (1986), we again faced the question of the sufficiency of corroborating evidence to support a confession.

1990In State v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 343 , 346 S.E.2d 596 (1986), we again faced the question of the sufficiency of corroborating evidence to support a confession.

1989The Court answered this argument by saying: “Here, however, the State made no attempt to submit this characteristic as an aggravating circumstance.” 320 N.C. at 199 , 358 S.E.2d at 15 .

1989The Court answered this argument by saying: “Here, however, the State made no attempt to submit this characteristic as an aggravating circumstance.” 320 N.C. at 199 , 358 S.E.2d at 15 .

1961Upon authority of the Stockwell case, ante 662, 119 S.E. 2d 795 , we hold that the trial court properly overruled defendant Brown’s motion for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit renewed at the close of all the evidence.