 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Crawford10/21/1986
Defendant, Walter Graham Crawford, was found guilty by a jury of the misdemeanor offense of driving while impaired. From a judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appeals. We find no error and affirm.
During the presentation of the State's case, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of an incriminating statement made by the defendant in response to a direct question of the arresting officer while the defendant was in custody. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting that statement in evidence.
I
According to the testimony of Officer Levi Powell of the North Carolina Highway Patrol, he was called on 19 May 1985 by another patrolman, Officer Caudle, to a location on Moreland Road near the Charlotte Motor Speedway in Cabarrus County. Officer Caudle had stopped the car driven by the defendant after observing it attempt to pass another vehicle in a no-passing zone. When Officer Powell arrived, he placed the defendant under arrest and immediately transported him to the Cabarrus County Law Enforcement Center for the purpose of administering a breathalyzer test and seeing a magistrate.
Officer Powell informed the defendant of his constitutional rights at 5:17 p.m., reading them from a standard card issued by the Highway Patrol. At that time the defendant elected not to answer any questions or sign a waiver form. The officer testified, "I read him his rights at 5:17, and it has 'waived,' and I've got 'no' checked so he did not waive them." Thereupon, the officer did not ask the defendant any questions. On his standard "AIR" form Officer Powell "X'ed out" all of the questions which are routinely asked of persons charged with driving while impaired.
A short while later, at 5:42 p.m., Officer Powell requested the defendant to take the breathalyzer test and the defendant refused. The officer then asked the defendant why he refused to take the test. In response the defendant stated that he was "under the influence of Valium, Demerol, and Percodan for pain."
Officer Powell testified that after advising the defendant of his rights and while they were waiting for the required amount of time to pass before the breathalyzer could be administered, he and the defendant engaged in conversation which was initiated by the defendant. The defendant was very talkative "but not in response to questions I was asking him." He talked about his physical condition and stated that he had a bad back. In addition, the defendant kept repeating in a "rambling" manner that he worked down at the speedway in a booth, that he had been at work rather than there to see the race, that he couldn't understand why he was in this position when he had just been working out at the track. Officer Powell further testified that the conversation included how the defendant had gotten to where he was stopped and generally what had occurred.
II
The rule is well established that an accused in custody who asserts his right to have counsel present during questioning, may not be subjected to further interrogation until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication with the police. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, 101 S. Ct. 1880, reh'g denied, 452 U.S. 973 (1981); State v. Lang, 309 N.C. 512, 308 S.E.2d 317 (1983). In State v. Bragg, 67 N.C. App. 759, 314 S.E.2d 1 (1984), this court extended that principle to cases involving not the right to counsel but the right to remain silent. In that case we stated that "when a person in custody indicates he does not
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|