Legal Opinion

State v. Joyner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 6, 1981No. 813SC177PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

Based on his first and second assignments of error, defendant contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence over his objection a statement made by defendant while in custody of the sheriffs department. He argues that the Miranda warnings given by Officer Richard A. Motto prior to the statement were inade*131quate and that the court failed to conduct a voir dire to determine the voluntariness of the statement. We do not agree.

These assignments of error are based on Exceptions Nos. 1 and 2. Officer Motto gave the following testimony at trial with respect to his giving the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. SatterfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. State v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. State v. ShraderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  5. State v. GravesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. ConardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. ParksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019
  3. State v. LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  4. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. State v. HoyleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API