Legal Opinion

State v. Glaze

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 4, 1974No. 7429SC840PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Because the findings of fact made by the trial judge do not specifically deal with the issue of the voluntariness of defendant’s consent to the search of the car, defendant contends that they are insufficient to hold the fruits of the search admissible.

“When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.” Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed. 2d 797. When consent is achieved through implicit coercion, by implied threat or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. State v. ArnoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  5. State v. EppleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. State v. DowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. AubinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. State v. FortneyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  5. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API