State v. Monroe

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Monroe

219 S.E.2d 270, 27 N.C. App. 405, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1866

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1975

Docket755SC594

StatusPublished

This text of 219 S.E.2d 270 (State v. Monroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Monroe, 219 S.E.2d 270, 27 N.C. App. 405, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1866 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting testimony of Sgt. Brown concerning defendant’s oral confession. After extensive voir dire examination in which Sgt. Brown, Detective Todd, and defendant testified, the trial judge made findings of fact that on 23 November 1974 Sgt. Brown read to defendant his constitutional rights, explained them in detail, explained the waiver, and that “the defendant knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily signed a waiver which has since been misplaced.” The court’s findings were supported by competent evidence and these' findings in turn support the court’s conclusion that the defendant’s statement was given freely and voluntarily and without duress.

*407 Defendant contends that the best evidence, rule . should have precluded the introduction of oral testimony to show that he signed the written waiver. This contention is without merit. What was at issue here was whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, not what were the contents or terms of the written document itself. The best evidence rule had no application to this case. 2 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d (Brandis Rev. 1973) § 191. Furthermore, the State was not required to produce a signed written waiver of rights in order to make the confession admissible. Although such a writing was necessary under former G.S. 7A-457 (a) to show waiver by an indigent defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971), this requirement was deleted for all except capital cases by the 1971 amendment to that statute.

No error.

Judges Morris and Martin concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting testimony of Sgt. Brown concerning defendant’s oral confession. After extensive voir dire examination in which Sgt. Brown, Detective Todd, and defendant testified, the trial judge made findings of fact that on 23 November 1974 Sgt. Brown read to defendant his constitutional rights, explained them in detail, explained the waiver, and that “the defendant knowingly and understandingly and voluntarily signed a waiver which has since been misplaced.” The court’s findings were supported by competent evidence and these' findings in turn support the court’s conclusion that the defendant’s statement was given freely and voluntarily and without duress.

*407 Defendant contends that the best evidence, rule . should have precluded the introduction of oral testimony to show that he signed the written waiver. This contention is without merit. What was at issue here was whether defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights, not what were the contents or terms of the written document itself. The best evidence rule had no application to this case. 2 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d (Brandis Rev. 1973) § 191. Furthermore, the State was not required to produce a signed written waiver of rights in order to make the confession admissible. Although such a writing was necessary under former G.S. 7A-457 (a) to show waiver by an indigent defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971), this requirement was deleted for all except capital cases by the 1971 amendment to that statute.

No error.

Judges Morris and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.E.2d 270, 27 N.C. App. 405, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monroe-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack