Page 447 |
Previous | 447 of 842 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1972 423
State v. Murphy
anything. They had not been discussing the narcotics charge
against him at the time defendant asked the officer if there
was really any heroin in the bag. When the officer told him
there was, defendant commented that he didn't believe it be-cause
he had counted three and saw three go down in the com-mode;
that he had just miscounted. He continued to discuss the
use of narcotics in Fayetteville and how easy it was to obtain
drugs there. Defendant offered no evidence. The court found
the statements to have been voluntary, that defendant was not
being interrogated and that the warnings required by Miranda
v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966),
were not applicable. In this we find no error. The fact that
defendant was in custody when he made the statements does
not of itself render the inculpatory statements inadmissible.
State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E. 2d 363 (1965). There is no
evidence indicating pressure or fear or the promise of reward.
The record clearly shows that there was no custodial interro-gation.
Therefore, the officer was not required to warn defend-ant
of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, supra.
State v. Muse, 280 N.C. 31, 185 S.E. 2d 214 (1971), cert. denied
406 U.S. 974, 32 L.Ed. 2d 674, 92 S.Ct. 2409 (7 June 1972).
[4] The evidence presented by the State tended to show that
the officers went to the address set out in the search warrant,
knocked on the door, and told the occupants they were with
the police and had a search warrant. The officers then saw
defendant run from the living room to the bathroom. They
attempted to knock the door open, and a man inside opened the
door. The officer went immediately to the bathroom and at-tempted
to open the door. It was latched, and he forced it
open and took defendant by the arm. There was a brown
paper bag on the floor between the commode and the bathtub.
Another agent picked up the bag and took out a tinfoil package
which contained a white powder. Defendant was placed under
arrest and advised of his rights. The evidence was that chemical
analysis showed the package contained heroin.
The evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
No exception is taken to the charge of the court to the
jury. Defendant, represented by competent counsel, has been
given a fair and impartial trial free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges VAUGHNan d GRAHAMco ncur.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.015, Spring Session 1972] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 15, Spring Session 1972. Cited as 15 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_015.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 447 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1972 423 State v. Murphy anything. They had not been discussing the narcotics charge against him at the time defendant asked the officer if there was really any heroin in the bag. When the officer told him there was, defendant commented that he didn't believe it be-cause he had counted three and saw three go down in the com-mode; that he had just miscounted. He continued to discuss the use of narcotics in Fayetteville and how easy it was to obtain drugs there. Defendant offered no evidence. The court found the statements to have been voluntary, that defendant was not being interrogated and that the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), were not applicable. In this we find no error. The fact that defendant was in custody when he made the statements does not of itself render the inculpatory statements inadmissible. State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E. 2d 363 (1965). There is no evidence indicating pressure or fear or the promise of reward. The record clearly shows that there was no custodial interro-gation. Therefore, the officer was not required to warn defend-ant of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, supra. State v. Muse, 280 N.C. 31, 185 S.E. 2d 214 (1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 974, 32 L.Ed. 2d 674, 92 S.Ct. 2409 (7 June 1972). [4] The evidence presented by the State tended to show that the officers went to the address set out in the search warrant, knocked on the door, and told the occupants they were with the police and had a search warrant. The officers then saw defendant run from the living room to the bathroom. They attempted to knock the door open, and a man inside opened the door. The officer went immediately to the bathroom and at-tempted to open the door. It was latched, and he forced it open and took defendant by the arm. There was a brown paper bag on the floor between the commode and the bathtub. Another agent picked up the bag and took out a tinfoil package which contained a white powder. Defendant was placed under arrest and advised of his rights. The evidence was that chemical analysis showed the package contained heroin. The evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. No exception is taken to the charge of the court to the jury. Defendant, represented by competent counsel, has been given a fair and impartial trial free from prejudicial error. No error. Judges VAUGHNan d GRAHAMco ncur. |
