intelligent waiver (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

intelligent waiver in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2022 3 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen
scotus · 1938 · cited in 4 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1964–2022
2 sentences

2022The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), overruled in part on other grounds by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

2022The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), overruled in part on other grounds by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

34

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Johnny James Blackmon v. Stanley Blackledge, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolinagreen
ca4 · 1976 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
1 sentence

1976But see Blackmon v. Blackledge, 541 F. 2d 1070 (1976) where the court held, in a federal habeas corpus proceeding brought by the same defendant after conviction at a subsequent trial, that a waiver of the right to counsel could be inferred in these circumstances.

11

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Edwards v. Arizona green
scotus · 1981
2 sentences

2022The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), overruled in part on other grounds by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

2022The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), overruled in part on other grounds by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981).

32022–2022
State v. Wallace green
nc · 2000
2 sentences

2013The defendant was fully informed of his rights on two occasions within those 40 minutes and he made an intelligent waiver of counsel); State v. Chapman, 343 N.C. 495 , 471 S.E.2d 354 (1996) (There was no unnecessary delay for purposes of Chapter 15A where the defendant was arrested at 9:30 a.m. and taken to a magistrate at 8:00 p.m. where a large part of the time was spent interrogating the defendant); and State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481 , 528 S.E.2d 326 (2000) (The defendant was arrested at 5:00 p.m. on 12 March 1994, met with investigators in an interview at 6:43 p.m. that same day, was advis

2013The defendant was fully informed of his rights on two occasions within those 40 minutes and he made an intelligent waiver of counsel); State v. Chapman, 343 N.C. 495 , 471 S.E.2d 354 (1996) (There was no unnecessary delay for purposes of Chapter 15A where the defendant was arrested at 9:30 a.m. and taken to a magistrate at 8:00 p.m. where a large part of the time was spent interrogating the defendant); and State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481 , 528 S.E.2d 326 (2000) (The defendant was arrested at 5:00 p.m. on 12 March 1994, met with investigators in an interview at 6:43 p.m. that same day, was advis

12013–2013
State v. Chapman green
nc · 1996
2 sentences

2013The defendant was fully informed of his rights on two occasions within those 40 minutes and he made an intelligent waiver of counsel); State v. Chapman, 343 N.C. 495 , 471 S.E.2d 354 (1996) (There was no unnecessary delay for purposes of Chapter 15A where the defendant was arrested at 9:30 a.m. and taken to a magistrate at 8:00 p.m. where a large part of the time was spent interrogating the defendant); and State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481 , 528 S.E.2d 326 (2000) (The defendant was arrested at 5:00 p.m. on 12 March 1994, met with investigators in an interview at 6:43 p.m. that same day, was advis

2013The defendant was fully informed of his rights on two occasions within those 40 minutes and he made an intelligent waiver of counsel); State v. Chapman, 343 N.C. 495 , 471 S.E.2d 354 (1996) (There was no unnecessary delay for purposes of Chapter 15A where the defendant was arrested at 9:30 a.m. and taken to a magistrate at 8:00 p.m. where a large part of the time was spent interrogating the defendant); and State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481 , 528 S.E.2d 326 (2000) (The defendant was arrested at 5:00 p.m. on 12 March 1994, met with investigators in an interview at 6:43 p.m. that same day, was advis

12013–2013
State v. Swift green
· 1976
1 sentence

1978The requirements of the Blackmon case, however, have been relaxed by State v. Swift, 290 *733 N.C. 383, 226 S.E. 2d 652 (1976).

11978–1978
State v. Blackmon green
nc · 1971
2 sentences

1978Defendant cites State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42 , 185 S.E. 2d 123 (1971), which held that an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel could not be inferred when defendant was given the Miranda warnings, stated that he knew and understood his rights, and failed to request counsel.

1978Defendant cites State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42 , 185 S.E. 2d 123 (1971), which held that an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel could not be inferred when defendant was given the Miranda warnings, stated that he knew and understood his rights, and failed to request counsel.

11978–1978
State v. Green green
nc · 1970
2 sentences

1972App. 234 , 174 S.E. 2d 8 , 277 N.C. 188 , 176 S.E. 2d 756 (1970), it was held that a charge of willful failure to support illegitimate children is not a serious misdemeanor requiring the appointment of counsel or an intelligent waiver thereof under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

1972App. 234 , 174 S.E. 2d 8 , 277 N.C. 188 , 176 S.E. 2d 756 (1970), it was held that a charge of willful failure to support illegitimate children is not a serious misdemeanor requiring the appointment of counsel or an intelligent waiver thereof under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

11972–1972
State v. Green neutral
ncctapp · 1970
1 sentence

1972App. 234 , 174 S.E. 2d 8 , 277 N.C. 188 , 176 S.E. 2d 756 (1970), it was held that a charge of willful failure to support illegitimate children is not a serious misdemeanor requiring the appointment of counsel or an intelligent waiver thereof under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

11972–1972
Moore v. Michigan green
scotus · 1957
2 sentences

1964The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” In Moore v. Michigan (1957), 355 U.S. 155 , 2 L.

1964The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” In Moore v. Michigan (1957), 355 U.S. 155 , 2 L.

11964–1964

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1242 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-30 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-32 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 179 (1947–2026) LA 87 (1942–2019) IL 85 (1948–2026) GA 48 (1971–2026) OH 41 (1944–2026) AR 36 (1956–2021) TX 33 (1968–2025) CT 32 (1968–2016) IN 30 (1969–2020) MD 28 (1964–2008) NY 28 (1955–2018) AL 21 (1965–2018) PA 20 (1941–2021) WA 19 (1963–2022) FL 19 (1964–2014) AZ 18 (1965–2021) SC 18 (1974–2024) WV 18 (1965–2021) MO 14 (1896–2023) CO 13 (1967–2021) MN 13 (1959–2024) RI 12 (1964–2011) NH 11 (1965–2019) MI 11 (1967–2023) MA 11 (1971–2010) NJ 10 (1945–2026) AK 10 (1980–2023) NC 9 (1964–2022) OR 9 (1966–1983) DC 8 (1959–2010) OK 8 (1939–1979) NM 8 (1971–2020) WI 7 (1968–2003) ND 7 (1965–2025) TN 6 (1951–2024) VA 6 (1979–2023) KS 6 (1949–1982) IA 6 (1966–2022) KY 6 (1981–2022) VT 5 (1960–2016) MS 5 (1988–2019) SD 5 (1943–2006) NV 5 (1970–1984) NE 4 (1976–2019) ID 4 (1967–1986) ME 4 (1980–2014) WY 4 (1984–1992) DE 2 (1985–2015) UT 2 (1990–2001) MT 2 (1963–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check