Legal Opinion

State v. Saldierna

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 21, 2015No. COA14–1345PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEPHENS, Judge.

*347In this appeal, we consider a matter of first impression: Whether an ambiguous statement made by a juvenile which implicates his statutory right to have a parent present during a custodial interrogation requires that the law enforcement officer conducting the interview clarify the meaning of the juvenile's statement before continuing her questioning. For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that it does.

*348Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from Defendant Felix Ricardo Saldierna's attempt to suppress a confession he gave to police officers while in custody.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. J. D. B. v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  4. State v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State v. GolphinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. SaldiernaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
  2. State v. SaldiernaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2018
  3. State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  4. State v. SaldiernaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
  5. State v. SaldiernaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016

1 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