Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Saldierna

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 17, 2018No. 271PA15-2Published

1Dissent

Justice BEASLEY dissenting.

**426In Saldierna I , I dissented because defendant's statement, "Um, [c]an I call my mom?", was an unambiguous invocation of his right to have a parent present during questioning. See State v. Saldierna (Saldierna I ), 369 N.C. 401, 409, 794 S.E.2d 474, 479 (2016) (Beasley, J., dissenting). Upon this unambiguous invocation, law enforcement should have immediately ceased questioning and not resumed until defendant's mother was present or he reinitiated the conversation. See id. at 412, 794 S.E.2d at 481 (citing Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. State v. SaldiernaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API