{ "id": 8550262, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN GARDNER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gardner", "decision_date": "1976-02-04", "docket_number": "No. 7526SC744", "first_page": "484", "last_page": "486", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "28 N.C. App. 484" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 N.C. App. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11301742 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/22/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550822 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444" }, { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S.E. 2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559828 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564104 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569736 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 316, "char_count": 4434, "ocr_confidence": 0.567, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.135771028113528e-07, "percentile": 0.7664921777292807 }, "sha256": "a36686ef1b85e702939804507587030b08f0dc70602dd73410b600d208c0f34d", "simhash": "1:e3b8746ab6f70c67", "word_count": 735 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN GARDNER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe primary assignment of error by defendant is that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence defendant\u2019s incriminating statements made to police officers at the scene of the alleged crime. Defendant argues State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42, 185 S.E. 2d 123 (1971), and asserts that he never expressly waived his right to remain silent and his right to counsel after being given the Miranda warnings.\nThe State asserts that the interrogation by the police officers was investigatory as opposed to custodial.\nAs stated in State v. Lawson, 285 N.C. 320, 204 S.E. 2d 843 (1974), the Miranda warnings and waiver of counsel are required only where a defendant is subjected to \u201ccustodial interrogations.\u201d Where a defendant makes a voluntary statement, or where he is not in custody during interrogation, there is no waiver requirement. State v. Blackmon, 284 N.C. 1, 199 S.E. 2d 431 (1973).\n\u201cCustodial interrogation\u201d is defined as \u201cquestioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.\u201d Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694, 706 (1966).\nThe circumstances surrounding the interrogation were as follows:\nThe officers arrived at the Copra Restaurant in response to a call concerning an assault and personal injury. Upon their arrival the defendant was talking on the telephone and the officers asked for the location of the injured party. One of the women present indicated that Poe was in the lounge area.\nTables in the lounge were found overturned, and the victim was found on the floor next to the wall. The officers went back to defendant and asked him to step into the lounge with them. The officers then asked defendant \u201cwhat had happened.\u201d Before defendant could answer he was given full Miranda warnings. Following his statements defendant was placed under arrest.\nThe questions by the officers were part of a routine on-the-scene investigation. There was no custodial interrogation. State v. Archible, 25 N.C. App. 95, 212 S.E. 2d 44 (1975) ; State v. Thomas, 22 N.C. App. 206, 206 S.E. 2d 390 (1974). Defendant, as the owner of the restaurant, was a logical person for the investigating officers to ask concerning the killing that had just taken place. He was questioned at his place of employment, and at the scene. He was not under arrest, and we do not believe that defendant was in custody or deprived of his freedom in a significant way within the meaning of Miranda.\nWe hold that there was no custodial interrogation, and hence there is no need for us to reach the question of whether there was an affirmative waiver of the right to counsel.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Claude W. Harris, for the State.", "Laey W. Blue for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN GARDNER\nNo. 7526SC744\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 75\u2014 incriminating statements \u2014 absence of custodial interrogation\u2014 no necessity for waiver of counsel\nIncriminating statements made by defendant at the scene of a killing in response to a question by officers as to \u201cwhat had happened\u201d were not the result of custodial interrogation and were admissible in evidence even if defendant did not expressly waive his right to counsel prior to making the statements.\nAppeal by defendant from Briggs, Judge. Judgment entered 17 April 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 January 1976.\nDefendant was tried on a charge of second degree murder. The evidence tended to establish the following:\nDefendant was the owner and operator of the Copra Restaurant and Lounge. On or about March 4, 1974, about 4:15 a.m., defendant and James Poe, while at the. restaurant, had a dispute concerning a debt Poe owed defendant. Poe, an employee of the defendant, operated the lounge part of the business. Defendant drew a gun and he and Poe wrestled across the room. Shots were fired, and Poe died from bullet wounds inflicted by defendant.\nWhen the police arrived, after being called, the defendant, defendant\u2019s wife, and two other women were present in addition to the deceased. Defendant was interrogated, and admitted that he had killed Poe.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Claude W. Harris, for the State.\nLaey W. Blue for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0484-01", "first_page_order": 512, "last_page_order": 514 }