 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
p from a gunshot wound; that both of these wounds had been treated by a physician at the Anson County Hospital; that he was in good condition otherwise; that he was sitting up and that other than the bandage he appeared basically the same condition as he does in court today; that at one point . . . the defendant requested something to drink and . . . was provided with two soft drinks, which he consumed[;] . . . that the defendant had a slight to moderate odor of alcohol about his person and that at the time of the interrogation at 8:43 and thereafter that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs[;] . . . that the defendant was coherent, that he was understanding and that he was not confused and not complaining[;] . . . that the answers in relation to the questions asked were extremely reasonable, responsive and appropriate[;] . . . that no promises, offers of reward or inducement by any law enforcement officers were made in order for the defendant to make a statement[;] . . . that there were no threats or suggest[ions] of violence or show of violence by any law enforcement officers made to persuade or induce the defendant to make a statement[;] . . . that the defendant made no statement desiring to stop the questions, but at one point he did request to be allowed to rest, and that he was allowed to rest for approximately seventeen minutes[;] . . . that the defendant made no request for an attorney during any of the questioning, and that the defendant expressly stated he did not want an attorney present; that the defendant . . . expressly stated that he did understand his rights; that he was unable to sign the written waiver, but that he did, in fact, make an expressed oral waiver to [Jackson]. And based on these findings of fact the Court would conclude as a
matter of law that under the totality of the circumstances none of the constitutional rights, neither Federal nor State, of the defendant were violated by his arrest, detention, interrogation, or confession; that there were no promises, offers of reward, or inducement to the defendant to make a statement; that there were no threat or suggest[ions] of violence or show of violence to persuade or induce the defendant to make a statement; that the statements made by the defendant to [Jackson] . . . were made freely, voluntarily and understandingly; that the defendant was in full understanding of his constitutional rights to remain silent, of his right to counsel, and all other rights; and that he freely, knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived each of those rights and thereupon made the statement to the officers above mentioned.
The court then overruled defendant's objection to admission of the statements.
Defendant contends that the above findings are not supported by the evidence. At a voir dire hearing on the admissibility of a confession, the trial court must determine whether the State has met its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary. State v. Corley, 310 N.C. 40, 52, 311 S.E.2d 540, 547 (1984). However, appellate courts do not apply the preponderance of the evidence test. Id. Rather, the findings are conclusive on appeal if they are supported by competent evidence in the record. Id.; State v. Perdue, 320 N.C. 51, 59, 357 S.E.2d 345, 350 (1987). Despite conflicting evidence, " o reviewing court may properly set aside or modify those findings if so supported." State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549, 569, 304 S.E.2d 134, 145 (1983). However, the conclusions of law are fully reviewable. State v. Perdue, 320 N.C. at 59,
|