 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
s to disregard the trial court's instructions on the effect of intoxication in determining defendant's guilt or innocence, or his sentence, under the law applicable to the facts presented. We thus hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing ex mero motu to prohibit this line of questioning. See State v. Clark, 319 N.C. 215, 353 S.E.2d 205 (proper for prosecutor to ask prospective jurors if the fact that the State was relying on circumstantial evidence would cause them any problems); State v. Hedgepeth, 66 N.C. App. 390, 310 S.E.2d 920 (1984) (proper for defense counsel to ask prospective jurors if they
could follow instructions to consider defendant's criminal record only in determining his credibility).
Defendant next assigns error to the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence of his inculpatory post-arrest statements. He argues that he did not make a voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights and did not make his statements voluntarily.
After a voir dire hearing to determine the admissibility of defendant's statements, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, in pertinent part, as follows:
hat the defendant was arrested at the scene of the crime . . . approximately six o'clock p.m. on December the 22nd, 1984; that he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, three counts; that he was thereafter taken to the Anson County Hospital and treated for a wound to his head and to his buttocks; and that he was thereafter taken by van to . . . Central Prison for safekeeping; . . . that he was interrogated in the van enroute . . .; that the temperature and conditions inside the van were comfortable; . . .; that prior to any question or interrogation the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights . . .; that these rights were read to him; that he was advised of his rights at approximately 8:43 p.m., advised of his right to remain silent and [that] anything he said would be used against him as evidence in court, and advised of right to have an attorney present before and during any questioning; that he was advised of a right to have an attorney appointed, if he couldn't afford one, the State . . . would appoint him one; that he was advised of his right to . . . stop answering questions at any time and not to resume until he had an attorney present if he wanted one; that he was advised of these rights by Special Agent Carl Jackson . . . of the [S.B.I.]; . . . that [Jackson] . . . was introduced as a law enforcement officer; and that he was also advised of his rights in the presence of Henry Watkins . . . and George Pratt . . .[;] . . . that the defendant replied orally in English that he understood all of this stuff, that he had been tried for his life in 1951, and that he had heard all of this stuff before, and that he understood his rights; that he stated that he did not want a lawyer present and that he stated that he would talk, but that he didn't
want to sign anything because he could not see[;] . . . that he was interrogated in English by [Jackson] and at a later point questions were asked by [Watkins] and Pratt[;] . . . that the defendant is approximately sixty-five years old and he speaks and understands English[;] . . . that his educational background is very limited, that he has an I.Q. of approximately -- between 74 and 89[;] . . . that his physical condition at the time of the interrogation was that he had been released from the hospital, that he had been treated for an injury to his eye; that his left eye was swollen shut; that he was blind in his right eye; that he had an injury to his hi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|