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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2001 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Medlingreen2 sentences1994“The rule of Miranda requiring that suspects be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by the police and the rule of Edwards guaranteeing the right to remain silent and the presence of counsel during such questioning apply only to custodial interrogation.” State v. Medlin, 333 N.C. 280, 290 , 426 S.E.2d 402, 407 (1993). 1994“The rule of Miranda requiring that suspects be informed of their constitutional rights before being questioned by the police and the rule of Edwards guaranteeing the right to remain silent and the presence of counsel during such questioning apply only to custodial interrogation.” State v. Medlin, 333 N.C. 280, 290 , 426 S.E.2d 402, 407 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacUkgreen2 sentences1974This is why the opinion in Miranda expressly ex- *327 eluded ‘on-the-scene questioning’ from the warning requirements. ...” See State v. Sykes, supra. The Court of Appeals in Beasley quoted with approval from State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 15-16 , 268 A. 2d 1, 9 (1970), as follows: “Now, with the problem squarely before us, we are of the opinion that, in view of the absence of any indication to the contrary by the United States Supreme Court, the rules of Miranda should be held inapplicable to all motor vehicle violations.” We do not approve this language. 1974This is why the opinion in Miranda expressly ex- *327 eluded ‘on-the-scene questioning’ from the warning requirements. ...” See State v. Sykes, supra. The Court of Appeals in Beasley quoted with approval from State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 15-16 , 268 A. 2d 1, 9 (1970), as follows: “Now, with the problem squarely before us, we are of the opinion that, in view of the absence of any indication to the contrary by the United States Supreme Court, the rules of Miranda should be held inapplicable to all motor vehicle violations.” We do not approve this language. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Elizabeth Reid, United States of America v. Lucy Boylan
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 994 . 2001Id. at 994 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences1995We initially note that the question “Who was Sherman,” because it was designed to elicit an incriminating response, constituted an interrogation by the police in violation of Edwards-, therefore, the trial court properly suppressed Detective Whitt’s question, “Who was Sherman” and defendant’s subsequent response, “White.” See State v. Washington, 330 N.C. 188 , 410 S.E.2d 55 (1991) (interrogation occurs when objective observer with same knowledge of suspect as police officer would, on sole basis of hearing officer’s remarks, infer remarks were designed to elicit incriminating response). 1995We initially note that the question “Who was Sherman,” because it was designed to elicit an incriminating response, constituted an interrogation by the police in violation of Edwards-, therefore, the trial court properly suppressed Detective Whitt’s question, “Who was Sherman” and defendant’s subsequent response, “White.” See State v. Washington, 330 N.C. 188 , 410 S.E.2d 55 (1991) (interrogation occurs when objective observer with same knowledge of suspect as police officer would, on sole basis of hearing officer’s remarks, infer remarks were designed to elicit incriminating response). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Lane
green
2 sentences1989In State v. Lane, 301 N.C. 382 , 271 S.E.2d 273 (1980) this Court held it was prejudicial error to allow a defendant to be cross-examined as to why he did not tell the officers of the alibi he used at trial.- We said that the defendant had the right under article I, section 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina as well as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to remain silent and “any comment upon the exercise of this right, nothing else appearing, was impermissible.” Under Lane it was error to comment on the d 1989In State v. Lane, 301 N.C. 382 , 271 S.E.2d 273 (1980) this Court held it was prejudicial error to allow a defendant to be cross-examined as to why he did not tell the officers of the alibi he used at trial.- We said that the defendant had the right under article I, section 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina as well as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment to remain silent and “any comment upon the exercise of this right, nothing else appearing, was impermissible.” Under Lane it was error to comment on the d | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Overman
green
2 sentences1985Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 ; State v. Overman, 284 N.C. 335 , 200 S.E. 2d 604 . 1985Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 ; State v. Overman, 284 N.C. 335 , 200 S.E. 2d 604 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences1985Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 ; State v. Overman, 284 N.C. 335 , 200 S.E. 2d 604 . 1985Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 1 ; State v. Overman, 284 N.C. 335 , 200 S.E. 2d 604 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Arnold Lowe v. United States
green
1 sentence1975This is why the opinion in Miranda expressly excluded ‘on-the-scene questioning’ from the warn ing requirements.” Lowe v. United States, 407 F. 2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1969), quoted in State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 206 , 203 S.E. 2d 849 (1974). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Sykes
green
2 sentences1975This is why the opinion in Miranda expressly excluded ‘on-the-scene questioning’ from the warn ing requirements.” Lowe v. United States, 407 F. 2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1969), quoted in State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 206 , 203 S.E. 2d 849 (1974). 1975This is why the opinion in Miranda expressly excluded ‘on-the-scene questioning’ from the warn ing requirements.” Lowe v. United States, 407 F. 2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1969), quoted in State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 206 , 203 S.E. 2d 849 (1974). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Grant
neutral
2 sentences1965State v. Grant, 248 N.C. 341 , 103 S.E. 2d 339 . 1965State v. Grant, 248 N.C. 341 , 103 S.E. 2d 339 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.