State v. Crudup
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WYNN, Judge.
Sidney Ray Crudup appeals his conviction for felonious possession of cocaine and presents one issue: Did the trial court err by admitting defendant’s incriminating statements (made without Miranda warnings in response to police questioning while handcuffed and detained) in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)? We conclude, based upon the totality of the circumstances, defendant was subjected to an unconstitutional custodial interrogation. Furthermore, we hold that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; accordingly, we grant defendant a new0trial.
In…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- New York v. QuarlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. GolphinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. CrookCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
- State v. YoungCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
- In re D.A.C.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
- State v. LopezCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
- State v. HewsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.