State v. Pollock
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Defendant asserts that the trial court committed error by allowing the patrolman to testify, over defendant’s objection, as to incriminating statements made by defendant following his arrest without first conducting a voir dire to ascertain (1) whether these inculpatory remarks were made after the so-called “Miranda Warnings” were given, and (2) whether the Statements were voluntarily and understandingly made after defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights. The incriminating statements by defendant were in response to a series of questions asked by the patrolman…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- State v. MacUkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1970
- State v. . RobertsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1827
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. GormanAppellate Court of Illinois · 1991
- State v. GoinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978