Legal Opinion

State v. Edgerton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 7, 1991No. 433PA87PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WEBB, Justice.

We reverse the Court of Appeals. The United States Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), that confessions which result from in-custody interrogations initiated by police officers without proper warning as to constitutional rights must be excluded unless a defendant knowingly, voluntarily and understanding^ waives his rights. In order to trigger the exclusionary rule of Miranda, it is necessary that the statement be the result of interrogation. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); State v. Leonard, 300 N.C. 223, 266…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State v. LeonardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. LambertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  2. State v. BarlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. State v. BartlettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  4. State v. BarlowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  5. State v. BarlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991

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