giving of the first warning (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

giving of the first warning in North Carolina

8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2001 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gilreathgreen
ariz · 1971 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1975–1986
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

33
State v. McZorngreen
nc · 1975 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1977–2001
2 sentences

1977The factors to be considered in determining whether the initial warning became so stale and remote that a substantial possibility exists that a defendant was unaware of his constitutional rights in a subsequent interrogation when proper warnings had previously been given are stated in State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417 , 219 S.E. 2d 201 , modified as to death sentence, 428 U.S. 904 , as follows: ... (1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and the subsequent interrogation ... (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places

1977In deciding this, we must consider the following circumstances: “(1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and the subsequent interrogation; (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places; (3) whether the warnings were given and the subsequent interrogation conducted by the same or different officers; (4) the extent to which the subsequent statement differed from any previous statements; (5) the apparent intellectual and emotional state of the suspect.’ ” State v. McZorn, supra, at 434, 219 S.E. 2d, at 212 .

13
State v. Artisgreen
nc · 1981 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985State v. Artis, 304 N.C. 378, 382 , 283 S.E. 2d 522, 524 (1981).

1985State v. Artis, 304 N.C. 378, 382 , 283 S.E. 2d 522, 524 (1981).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Watson v. State green
ga · 1971
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

31975–1986
Brown v. State green
mdctspecapp · 1969
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1975See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles) ; Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning) ; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968) ; Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour) ; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles) ; 12 Washburn Law Journal 222, 226;

21975–1986
Commonwealth v. Clark green
pa · 1973
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

21975–1986
Commonwealth v. Bennett green
pa · 1971
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

21975–1986
The People v. Hill green
ill · 1968
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

21975–1986
United States v. Leo Tom Hopkins green
ca5 · 1970
2 sentences

1986See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles); Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning); People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968); Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour); Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles); 12 Washington Law Journal 222, 226; (2)

1975See State v. Gilreath, 107 Ariz. 318 , 487 P. 2d 385 (1971) (second and third interrogations occurred 12 and 36 hours respectively after the first; repeated warnings not required) (applying Escobedo principles) ; Watson v. State, 227 Ga. 698 , 182 S.E. 2d 446 (1971) (7 hour interval held not to require repeated warning) ; People v. Hill, 39 Ill. 2d 125 , 233 N.E. 2d 367 (1968) ; Commonwealth v. Clark, 454 Pa. 329 , 311 A. 2d 910 (1973) (less than an hour) ; Commonwealth v. Bennett, 445 Pa. 8 , 282 A. 2d 276 (1971) (five hours) (applying Escobedo principles) ; 12 Washburn Law Journal 222, 226;

21975–1986
Griffin v. North Carolina green
scotus · 1976
1 sentence

2001Id. (citations omitted).

12001–2001
Avery v. North Carolina green
scotus · 1976
1 sentence

1977The factors to be considered in determining whether the initial warning became so stale and remote that a substantial possibility exists that a defendant was unaware of his constitutional rights in a subsequent interrogation when proper warnings had previously been given are stated in State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417 , 219 S.E. 2d 201 , modified as to death sentence, 428 U.S. 904 , as follows: ... (1) the length of time between the giving of the first warnings and the subsequent interrogation ... (2) whether the warnings and the subsequent interrogation were given in the same or different places

11977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-17 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443 (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

OH 21 (1987–2021) NC 8 (1975–2001) WV 3 (1995–2016) MD 2 (2005–2010)

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