Supreme Court of North Carolina· 9/29/2017

State v. Hammonds

Citations

804 S.E.2d 438
370 N.C. 158
2017 WL 4322423
2017 N.C. LEXIS 702

Syllabus

Direct review of trial court's new order on remand denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence when defendant was questioned by police while he was involuntarily committed, whether he was 'in custody,' required to receive Miranda warnings, and told he was free to end the questioning.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

suspect was not in custody when “the detectives offered [him] food or drink” and bathroom breaks were made available
suspect was not in custody when “the detectives offered [him] food or drink” and bathroom breaks were made available
no custodial interrogation when the conversation with the suspect was “calm and cordial in tone” and “the detectives offered [the suspect] food or drink”
no custodial interrogation when the conversation with the suspect was “calm and cordial in tone” and “the detectives offered [the suspect] food or drink”
When “a suspect’s freedom of movement is already restricted because of conditions unrelated to the interrogation,”. .courts move to the second step of the Howes analysis.
Miranda custody established where “detectives offered food or drink” to suspect after interview

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hudson, Ervin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.