Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Saldierna

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 21, 2016No. 271PA15Published

1DissentJustice Beasley

I disagree with the majority and would hold that defendant’s statement, “Um, Can I call my mom?” was an unambiguous invocation of his statutory right to have a parent present during custodial interrogation. Assuming arguendo that defendant’s statement was ambiguous, I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that because defendant’s request was ambiguous his statutory rights under N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101 were not violated. Because I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that law enforcement officers are required to ask questions to clarify the desire and intent of a juvenile who makes an…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Haley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  5. Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1962

12 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