 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Warren2/19/2002
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
The State appeals from an order entered by the trial court granting Jesse Scott Warren's ("defendant") motion to suppress evidence. After careful consideration of the briefs and record, we reverse and remand.
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 "theengine 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 G.S. § 20-138.1 and transporting an open container of alcoholic beverage after consuming alcohol in violation of G.S. § 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 appeals.
The State raises one issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in allowing defendant's motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the interaction between defendant and Cahoon. The State argues that the findings of fact are insufficient to affordeffective appellate review. In the alternative, the State argues that no reasonable articulable suspicion was required by Cahoon to approach defendant, and if needed, Cahoon had a reasonable articulable suspicion to support a stop. After careful consideration, we reverse and remand.
When the competency of evidence is challenged and the trial judge conducts a voir dire to determine admissibility, the general rule is that he should make findings of fact to show the basis of his ruling. If there is a material conflict in the evidence on voir dire, he must do so in order to resolve the conflict. State v. Vick, 341 N.C. 569, 580, 461 S.E.2d 655, 661 (1995) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
"In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, we determine only whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and whether these findings of fact support the court's conclusions of law." State v. Tarlton, __ N.C. App. __, __, 553 S.E.2d 50, 53 (2001).
Here, the evidence that Cahoon obtained as
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|