State v. Braxton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Braxton

468 S.E.2d 59, 343 N.C. 120, 1996 N.C. LEXIS 170

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 4, 1996

DocketNo. 551A94

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 S.E.2d 59 (State v. Braxton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Braxton, 468 S.E.2d 59, 343 N.C. 120, 1996 N.C. LEXIS 170 (N.C. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Orr, J.

For the Court

The record on appeal regarding defendant’s first assignment of error reflects conflicting evidence as to: (1) whether defendant was custodially interrogated in the police car by Detective Sanders without being advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and (2) whether defendant invoked his right to counsel in the police car thereby rendering his subsequent waiver of rights at the police station during his interview with Detectives Bissette and Lyles involuntary unless defendant reinitiated conversation pursuant to Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981).

The superior court’s order contains no findings of fact resolving these conflicts in the evidence. We, therefore, remand to the superior court for a hearing on this matter and for additional findings of fact. The additional findings of fact, together with any amended conclusions and the order along with a transcript of the additional evidence, shall be certified to this Court forthwith and shall be treated as an addendum to the record. Copies shall be forwarded to all parties for such further proceedings, if any, in this Court as may then be ordered.

It ip so ordered.

Remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Done by the Court in Conference this 3rd day of April 1996.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Orr, J.

For the Court

The record on appeal regarding defendant’s first assignment of error reflects conflicting evidence as to: (1) whether defendant was custodially interrogated in the police car by Detective Sanders without being advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and (2) whether defendant invoked his right to counsel in the police car thereby rendering his subsequent waiver of rights at the police station during his interview with Detectives Bissette and Lyles involuntary unless defendant reinitiated conversation pursuant to Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378 (1981).

The superior court’s order contains no findings of fact resolving these conflicts in the evidence. We, therefore, remand to the superior court for a hearing on this matter and for additional findings of fact. The additional findings of fact, together with any amended conclusions and the order along with a transcript of the additional evidence, shall be certified to this Court forthwith and shall be treated as an addendum to the record. Copies shall be forwarded to all parties for such further proceedings, if any, in this Court as may then be ordered.

It ip so ordered.

Remanded to the Superior Court, Wake County, for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Done by the Court in Conference this 3rd day of April 1996.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 S.E.2d 59, 343 N.C. 120, 1996 N.C. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-braxton-nc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack