State v. Saldierna
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Haley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Gallegos v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.