 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Warren4/6/2004
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The State appealed from an order entered by the trial court granting Jesse Scott Warren's (defendant) motion to suppress evidence, and this Court reversed and remanded on the basis that the trial court's order did not make findings of ultimate facts. State v. Warren, 148 N.C. App. 716, 562 S.E.2d 117 (2002). The trial court entered a new order granting defendant's motion to suppress, and the State appeals from that order. After careful consideration of the briefs and record, we reverse the trial court. The facts of the case were reported in the previous unpublished opinion cited above. On 25 March 2000, the Hyde County Sheriff's Department received an anonymous telephone call. The caller reported a red, four-door Jeep Cherokee being driven recklessly while bottles were being thrown from inside the vehicle. Deputy Sheriff Daniel Cahoon (Cahoon) was parked "at Joyce's of Ocracoke parking lot" when he saw a red Jeep Cherokee turn from British Cemetery Road onto N.C. 12. Cahoon saw the vehicle accelerate rapidly and heard "the engine whining very, very high . . . ." Cahoon could then no longer see the vehicle. He pulled out of the parking lot and proceeded in the direction taken by the Jeep Cherokee.
The State's evidence tends to show that Cahoon then saw the Jeep Cherokee parked in Sweet Tooth's parking lot. Cahoon pulled in behind the vehicle and activated his blue lights.
Defendant's evidence tends to show that at approximately 11:30 p.m. defendant was driving north on Highway 12 when Cahoon "pulled behind and then put his lights on and pulled me over." Defendant then pulled his vehicle into a parking lot and stopped.
Cahoon approached the vehicle and asked for defendant's license and registration. Cahoon issued defendant a citation for driving while impaired in violation of Section 20-138.1 of our General Statutes and transporting an open container of alcoholic beverage after consuming alcohol in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.7. The citation indicated it was issued at 11:28 p.m. on 25 March 2000. Defendant was arrested and charged on these offenses. A hearing on defendant's motion to suppress was held on 23 October 2000 before Judge James R. Vosburgh in Hyde County Superior Court. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress "any testimony and/or evidence obtained from the Officer during the stop forward . . . ." The State appealed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to enter findings of ultimate fact. In a written order, dated 4 June 2002, the trial court again allowed defendant's motion to suppress. The State brings this appeal.
The standard of review in evaluating a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress has been established:
he trial court's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting. Additionally, the trial court's determination of whether an interrogation is conducted while a person is in custody involves reaching a conclusion of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. he trial court's conclusions of law must be legally correct, reflecting a correct application of applicable legal principles to the facts found.
State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 336, 543 S.E.2d 823, 826 (2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The State's first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing defendant's motion to suppress the e
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|