{ "id": 3738504, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAAMALL DENARIS OGLESBY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Oglesby", "decision_date": "2007-08-24", "docket_number": "No. 683PA05", "first_page": "550", "last_page": "559", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "361 N.C. 550" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "622 S.E.2d 152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634483 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/622/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352976 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3736985 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "638 S.E.2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637356 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453, 458-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/638/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "626 S.E.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635152 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/626/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "646 S.E.2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12638742 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/646/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 S.E.2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633348 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692-93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/615/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "691-92" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4762828 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 L. Ed. 2d 1114", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 S. Ct. 2281", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3797218 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3740209 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" }, { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564177 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "160" }, { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4705445 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "535" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "355 S.E.2d 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" }, { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4742094 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439" }, { "page": "439" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8438167 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "525 U.S. 1124", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11221317, 11221030, 11221416, 11221496, 11221130, 11221163, 11221196, 11221453, 11221007, 11221073, 11221235, 11221367, 11221048, 11221274 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/525/1124-10", "/us/525/1124-02", "/us/525/1124-12", "/us/525/1124-14", "/us/525/1124-05", "/us/525/1124-06", "/us/525/1124-07", "/us/525/1124-13", "/us/525/1124-01", "/us/525/1124-04", "/us/525/1124-08", "/us/525/1124-11", "/us/525/1124-03", "/us/525/1124-09" ] }, { "cite": "502 S.E.2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576-77" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "348 N.C. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1659919 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/348/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132085 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "534 U.S. 838", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9117696, 9117539, 9117635, 9117510, 9117672, 9117610, 9117586, 9117779, 9117492, 9117653, 9117716, 9117559, 9117528, 9117750 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/534/0838-11", "/us/534/0838-04", "/us/534/0838-08", "/us/534/0838-02", "/us/534/0838-10", "/us/534/0838-07", "/us/534/0838-06", "/us/534/0838-14", "/us/534/0838-01", "/us/534/0838-09", "/us/534/0838-12", "/us/534/0838-05", "/us/534/0838-03", "/us/534/0838-13" ] }, { "cite": "540 S.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135728 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "65-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0050-01" ] }, { "cite": "595 S.E.2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2987693 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 U.S. 931", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9315009, 9314948, 9314725, 9314661, 9314695, 9314631, 9314793, 9314822, 9315113, 9314863, 9315060, 9314585, 9314909 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/532/0931-11", "/us/532/0931-10", "/us/532/0931-05", "/us/532/0931-03", "/us/532/0931-04", "/us/532/0931-02", "/us/532/0931-06", "/us/532/0931-07", "/us/532/0931-13", "/us/532/0931-08", "/us/532/0931-12", "/us/532/0931-01", "/us/532/0931-09" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" }, { "page": "224" }, { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 684963 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449" }, { "page": "449" }, { "page": "449" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3736985 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42, 49-51" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633109 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299", "parenthetical": "\"quoting State v. Fincher, 309 N.C. 1, 24, 305 S.E.2d 685, 699 (1983) (Harry Martin, J., concurring) (alterations in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1035", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "U. Kan. L. Rev.", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1050-51" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "127 L. Ed. 2d 661", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "114 S. Ct. 1310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "510 U.S. 1198", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 230656, 230497, 234140, 230308, 231301, 230236, 231785, 230159, 233557, 235224, 232572, 233405, 234462, 234815 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/510/1198-05", "/us/510/1198-08", "/us/510/1198-09", "/us/510/1198-10", "/us/510/1198-07", "/us/510/1198-03", "/us/510/1198-01", "/us/510/1198-14", "/us/510/1198-11", "/us/510/1198-12", "/us/510/1198-04", "/us/510/1198-06", "/us/510/1198-13", "/us/510/1198-02" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 180", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 609", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529678 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0609-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 427", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 219902, 219957, 220121, 219932, 220062 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0351-01", "/nc/355/0351-05", "/nc/355/0351-02", "/nc/355/0351-03", "/nc/355/0351-04" ] }, { "cite": "556 S.E.2d 644", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "652", "parenthetical": "finding aunt was guardian \"within the spirit and meaning of the Juvenile Code,\" even though she did not meet the legal definition set therein or fit into the enumerated categories" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "147 N.C. App. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9380568 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "539-40", "parenthetical": "finding aunt was guardian \"within the spirit and meaning of the Juvenile Code,\" even though she did not meet the legal definition set therein or fit into the enumerated categories" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/147/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6185389 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580-81" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570930 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694660 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 915", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "920", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359, 367, 334 S.E.2d 53, 59 (1985)" }, { "page": "920" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 658", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867671 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "666", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359, 367, 334 S.E.2d 53, 59 (1985)" }, { "page": "666" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0658-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 824", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4760221, 4762573, 4760119, 4765596, 4764029 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0824-01", "/nc/309/0824-04", "/nc/309/0824-03", "/nc/309/0824-02", "/nc/309/0824-05" ] }, { "cite": "306 S.E.2d 846", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "850" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526210 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 S.E.2d 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135584 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4779396 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "106" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 U.S. 625", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6206467 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "626", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" }, { "page": "1406", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" }, { "page": "636", "parenthetical": "alterations in original" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/475/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "569 S.E.2d 24", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27", "parenthetical": "quoting Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 626, 106 S. Ct. 1404, 1406, 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 636 (1986) (alterations in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9248713 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95", "parenthetical": "quoting Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 626, 106 S. Ct. 1404, 1406, 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 636 (1986) (alterations in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270", "parenthetical": "stating that in a juvenile proceeding, unlike an ordinary criminal proceeding, the burden upon the State to see that a juvenile's rights are protected is increased rather than decreased" }, { "parenthetical": "\"Although a confession is not inadmissible merely because the person making it is a minor, to be admissible it must have been voluntary, and the age of the person confessing is an additional factor to be considered in determining voluntariness.''(internal citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 555", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555283 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "558", "parenthetical": "stating that in a juvenile proceeding, unlike an ordinary criminal proceeding, the burden upon the State to see that a juvenile's rights are protected is increased rather than decreased" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3803150 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "575", "parenthetical": "\"quoting State v. Fincher, 309 N.C. 1, 24, 305 S.E.2d 685, 699 (1983) (Harry Martin, J., concurring) (alterations in original)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 S.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "333", "parenthetical": "Martin, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4736070 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576", "parenthetical": "Martin, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699", "parenthetical": "Harry Martin, J., concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4762828 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24", "parenthetical": "Harry Martin, J., concurring" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1089, "char_count": 23534, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.3716791018005854e-07, "percentile": 0.8758450782265684 }, "sha256": "9b312f1d3fa59108a8ab3d684d8afb5a99806939fe994c467cc22ad4217b567f", "simhash": "1:a6695c2a767f6cdc", "word_count": 3815 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAAMALL DENARIS OGLESBY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRADY, Justice.\nIn this case we determine whether an incriminating statement made by a juvenile during a custodial interrogation must be suppressed at trial, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101, when the juvenile had requested to telephone his aunt before making the statement. We hold that the statement need not be suppressed since defendant\u2019s aunt was not a \u201cguardian\u201d for purposes of the relevant statute. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals in part. We also vacate and remand the decision of the Court of Appeals in part for further proceedings.\nBACKGROUND\nOn 7 July 2003, the Forsyth County Grand Jury returned a true bill of indictment charging defendant with first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and attempted robbery with a firearm in connection with the fatal shooting of Scott Gray Jester during the early morning hours of 10 September 2002. Jester\u2019s body had been discovered later the same morning near an exit ramp off Interstate 40 in Winston-Salem after he had sustained three gunshot wounds to the back of the head. On 3 November 2003, the Forsyth County Grand Jury also returned a true bill of indictment charging defendant with two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon in connection with the robberies of two convenience stores on 7 September 2002 and on 8 September 2002. On 24 May 2004, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the two charges of robbery with a dangerous weapon, but the trial court postponed sentencing on those convictions until after defendant\u2019s trial on the three remaining charges.\nAlso on 24 May 2004, and before defendant\u2019s trial, the trial court heard defendant\u2019s motion to suppress an incriminating statement he made to law enforcement officers with the Winston-Salem Police Department during a custodial interrogation which had taken place on 11 September 2002, when defendant was .sixteen years old. Defendant\u2019s contention was that his juvenile rights were violated during the interrogation because the detectives did not cease questioning him when he requested to telephone his aunt and that therefore the statement should be suppressed. At the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the trial court made findings of fact that defendant\u2019s aunt was not his guardian or custodian under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101 and that, although defendant requested to telephone his aunt, this \u201cwas not a time specific request,\u201d nor did defendant say he would not speak with the officers until he was allowed to place the call. Based upon these findings, the trial court concluded that there was no statutory or constitutional violation of defendant\u2019s juvenile rights and denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nOn 28 May 2004, the jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, first-degree kidnapping, and attempted robbery with a firearm. The trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury\u2019s verdict, and defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the felony murder conviction and in the presumptive ranges for the first-degree kidnapping and attempted robbery convictions. Also on 28 May 2004, the trial court entered judgment on the two charges of robbery with a dangerous weapon consistent with defendant\u2019s plea of guilty. The trial court sentenced defendant in the aggravated range for both convictions, finding the same aggravating factor for both: That defendant joined with more than one other person in the commission of the offense and was not charged with committing a conspiracy.\nDefendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in a unanimous 6 December 2005 opinion found no error in part and remanded the case in part for resentencing. The State and defendant petitioned this Court for discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision, and these petitions were subsequently allowed on 19 December 2006. The State has raised one issue before the Court on appeal: Whether the trial court committed reversible Blakely error by sentencing defendant in the aggravated range for his two convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant has raised three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress; (2) whether the trial court erred in ordering that defendant be restrained by leg shackles; and (3) whether defendant\u2019s conviction for murder should be vacated because the indictment did not set forth all the elements of first-degree murder.\nANALYSIS\nWe determine first whether the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion in limine to suppress the statement he made to law enforcement officers on 11 September 2002. The State contends that defendant should be barred from raising this issue on appeal since he did not renew his objection at trial and has not argued, alternatively, that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the statement entered into evidence. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(4); State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 449, 533 S.E.2d 168, 224 (2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 931 (2001).\nAs the Court of Appeals indicated, defendant may have relied to his detriment on a 2003 amendment to the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, which provides in pertinent part: \u201cOnce the [trial] court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(2) (2005) (emphasis added). There is a direct conflict between this evidentiary rul\u00e9 and North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), which this Court has consistently interpreted to provide that a trial court\u2019s evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue of admissibility for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial. See State v. Roache, 358 N.C. 243, 292, 595 S.E.2d 381, 413 (2004); State v. Grooms, 353 N.C. 50, 65-66, 540 S.E.2d 713, 723 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 838 (2001); Golphin, 352 N.C. at 449, 533 S.E.2d at 224; State v. Hayes, 350 N.C. 79, 80, 511 S.E.2d 302, 303 (1999) (per curiam); State v. Bonnett, 348 N.C. 417, 437, 502 S.E.2d 563, 576-77 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1124 (1999). For this reason, our intermediate appellate court has already held that Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) is unconstitutional to the extent it conflicts with Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1). See State v. Tutt, 171 N.C. App. 518, 524, 615 S.E.2d 688, 692-93 (2005).\nThe Constitution of North Carolina expressly vests in this Court the \u201cexclusive authority to make rules of procedure and practice for the Appellate Division.\u201d N.C. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 13, cl. 2. Although Rule 103(a)(2) is contained in the Rules of Evidence, it is manifestly an attempt to govern the procedure and practice of the Appellate Division as it purports to determine which issues are preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold that, to the extent it conflicts with Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1), Rule of Evidence 103(a)(2) must fail. See State v. Stocks, 319 N.C. 437, 439, 355 S.E.2d 492, 493 (1987); State v. Bennett, 308 N.C. 530, 535, 302 S.E.2d 786, 790 (1983); State v. Elam, 302 N.C. 157, 160, 273 S.E.2d 661, 664 (1981).\nAs a consequence of the invalidity of Rule 103(a)(2) and the application of Appellate Rule 10(b)(1) to the instant case, defendant has failed to preserve the admissibility of his incriminating statement for appellate review. Nor has defendant argued that the trial court committed plain error. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(4); Golphin, 352 N.C. at 449, 533 S.E.2d at 224. Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeals noted, the amendment to Rule 103(a)(2) was presumed constitutional at the time of defendant\u2019s trial, which was held before the Court of Appeals decision in Tutt. Given the harsh consequences of barring review when a defendant has relied to his detriment on existing law, we exercise this Court\u2019s discretion under Appellate Procedure Rule 2 \u201cto prevent manifest injustice\u201d to defendant and to review his contention on the merits. See N.C. R. App. P. 2; see also Stocks, 319 N.C. at 439, 355 S.E.2d at 493; Elam, 302 N.C. at 161, 273 S.E.2d at 664.\nAn accused juvenile\u2019s rights during a custodial interrogation are codified in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101, which states in part that \u201c[a]ny juvenile in custody must be advised prior to questioning . . . [t]hat the juvenile has a right to have a parent, guardian, or custodian present during questioning.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101(a)(3) (2005). The statute further provides that \u201c[i]f the juvenile indicates in any manner and at any stage of questioning . . . that the juvenile does not wish to be questioned further, the officer shall cease questioning.\u201d Id. \u00a7 7B-2101(c) (2005). Before allowing evidence to be admitted from a juvenile\u2019s custodial interrogation, a trial court is required to \u201cfind that the juvenile knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived the juvenile\u2019s rights.\u201d Id. \u00a7 7B-2101(d) (2005). Defendant argues that the interrogation should have ceased when he requested to telephone his aunt, whom he asserts was effectively a \u201cguardian,\u201d and that therefore the trial court erred under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101(d) by denying his motion to suppress the incriminating statement he made shortly after his request was denied by the interrogating officers.\nClearly, defendant was entitled by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101(a)(3) to have a \u201cparent, guardian, or custodian\u201d present during his interrogation. However, an \u201caunt\u201d is not an enumerated relation in the statute, and an interpretation of the term \u201cguardian\u201d to encompass anything other than a relationship established by legal process would unjustifiably expand the plain and unambiguous meaning of the word. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 566 (abr. 7th ed. 2000) (defining \u201cguardian\u201d as \u201c[o]ne who has the legal authority and duty to care for another\u2019s person or property\u201d (emphasis added)). We are bound by well-accepted rules of statutory construction to give effect to this plain and unambiguous meaning and we therefore decline any attempt to ascertain a contrary legislative intent. See, e.g., In re A.R.G., 361 N.C. 392, 396, 646 S.E.2d 349, 351 (2007).\nThe trial court made a finding of fact that defendant\u2019s aunt was not his guardian or custodian. From the testimony of defendant\u2019s aunt, it is apparent that she never had custody of defendant, that defendant had only stayed with her on occasion but not for any considerable length of time, and that she had never signed any school papers for him. As the trial court\u2019s finding of fact is supported by competent evidence, it cannot be disturbed on appeal. See State v. Ripley, 360 N.C. 333, 339, 626 S.E.2d 289, 293 (2006). Moreover, the only evidence which could possibly support a contrary finding of fact is the aunt\u2019s testimony that she was \u201ca mother figure\u201d to defendant. However, this does not amount to the legal authority inherent in a guardian or custodial relationship. Defendant\u2019s aunt was clearly not a statutory person, and defendant therefore had no right to have her present during questioning. Thus, we affirm in part the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nHowever, we vacate the portion of the Court of Appeals decision in which that court found Blakely error in defendant\u2019s aggravated sentences for robbery with a dangerous weapon, which it treated as structural error, and remand to the Court of Appeals for harmless error review pursuant to State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41, 42, 49-51, 638 S.E.2d 452, 453, 458-59 (2006), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 127 S. Ct. 2281, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1114 (2007). As to the additional issues presented in defendant\u2019s petition, we conclude that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.\nAFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.\n. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-101 defines \u201cjuvenile\u201d'to mean \u201c[a] person who has not reached the person\u2019s eighteenth birthday and is not married, emancipated, or a member of the armed forces of the United States.\u201d As a result, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101 applies to defendant even though he was tried as an adult, notwithstanding the heading of Chapter 7B, Article 21, which reads: \u201cLaw Enforcement Procedures in Delinquency Proceedings.\u201d See State v. Fincher, 309 N.C. 1, 9-11, 305 S.E.2d 685, 691-92 (1983).", "type": "majority", "author": "BRADY, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON\ndissenting.\nBecause I believe that the majority erroneously elevates form over substance in casting the dispositive issue in this case as the subsequently determined legal status of the aunt instead of the contemporaneous state of mind of the juvenile and police officers during interrogation, I respectfully dissent.\nOur legislature has provided that \u201c[a]ny juvenile in custody must be advised prior to questioning . . . [t]hat the juvenile has a right to have a parent, guardian, or custodian present during questioning[.]\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101 (2005). Juveniles are awarded special consideration in light of their youth and limited life experiences. In re Stallings, 318 N.C. 565, 576, 350 S.E.2d 327, 333 (1986) (Martin, J., dissenting) (\u201cOur criminal justice system recognizes that their immaturity and vulnerability sometimes warrant protections well beyond those afforded adults. It is primarily for that reason that a separate juvenile code with separate juvenile procedures exists.\u201d).\nThis is why our courts have consistently recognized that \u201c \u2018[t]he [S]tate has a greater duty to protect the rights of a respondent in a juvenile proceeding than in a criminal prosecution.\u2019 \u201d In re T.E.F., 359 N.C. 570, 575, 614 S.E.2d 296, 299 (2005) (\u201cquoting State v. Fincher, 309 N.C. 1, 24, 305 S.E.2d 685, 699 (1983) (Harry Martin, J., concurring) (alterations in original)); see also In re Meyers, 25 N.C. App. 555, 558, 214 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1975) (stating that in a juvenile proceeding, unlike an ordinary criminal proceeding, the burden upon the State to see that a juvenile\u2019s rights are protected is increased rather than decreased). Though not paramount, age is an important factor in assessing the possible violation of constitutional or statutory rights. See id. (\u201cAlthough a confession is not inadmissible merely because the person making it is a minor, to be admissible it must have been voluntary, and the age of the person confessing is an additional factor to be considered in determining voluntariness.\u2019\u2019(internal citation omitted)).\n\u201cOnce a juvenile defendant has requested the presence of a parent, or any one of the parties listed in the statute, defendant may not be interrogated further \u2018until [counsel, parent, guardian, or custodian] has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.\u2019 \u201d State v. Branham, 153 N.C. App. 91, 95, 569 S.E.2d 24, 27 (2002) (quoting Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 626, 106 S. Ct. 1404, 1406, 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 636 (1986) (alterations in original)). In the past, our appellate courts have held that contravention of these juvenile rights is akin to Miranda violations. State v. Smith, 317 N.C. 100, 106, 343 S.E.2d 518, 521 (1986), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 543 S.E.2d 823 (2001). In Smith, we applied the rule requiring all interrogation to cease when an adult defendant requests an attorney to a juvenile who requests an attorney, parent, guardian, or custodian. Id; see also State v. Hunt, 64 N.C. App. 81, 86, 306 S.E.2d 846, 850 (holding that juvenile defendant\u2019s Miranda rights were violated when the police continued to interrogate him after he requested that his parents be present), disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 824, 310 S.E.2d 354 (1983). The burden rests on the State to show the juvenile defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of such Miranda rights. State v. Miller, 344 N.C. 658, 666, 477 S.E.2d 915, 920 (1996) (citing State v. Simpson, 314 N.C. 359, 367, 334 S.E.2d 53, 59 (1985)).\nIn evaluating whether such a waiver was knowing and intelligent, we consider the relevant state of mind of reasonable actors during the situation, and not with the benefit of hindsight. See State v. Davis, 305 N.C. 400, 410, 290 S.E.2d 574, 580-81 (1982) (describing the test for determining whether someone is in police custody as whether a \u201creasonable person in the suspect\u2019s position would believe that he had been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action was deprived in any significant way\u201d (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980))). Seen in this light, the detectives had no way of knowing the legal status of the juvenile\u2019s aunt at the time of the taped confession.\nIt is telling that even appellate courts have not always construed the statute as narrowly as the majority seems to indicate is required. In a case in which the shoe was on the other foot and the State sought to have an aunt recognized as complying with this statute in an analogous situation, the Court of Appeals held that an aunt constituted a guardian for the purpose of admitting a defendant\u2019s confession, even though she did not fall into any of the statute\u2019s enumerated categories. State v. Jones, 147 N.C. App. 527, 539-40, 556 S.E.2d 644, 652 (2001) (finding aunt was guardian \u201cwithin the spirit and meaning of the Juvenile Code,\u201d even though she did not meet the legal definition set therein or fit into the enumerated categories), disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed, 355 N.C. 351, 562 S.E.2d 427 (2002).\nFrom a policy perspective, we have long held that whether evidence is admitted or excluded under Miranda depends on whether exclusion of the evidence would deter improper conduct by law enforcement. State v. May, 334 N.C. 609, 613, 434 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198, 114 S. Ct. 1310, 127 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1994). The majority\u2019s holding effectively discourages police officers from complying with the strictures of the Juvenile Code. Since it is uncontested that (a) the juvenile\u2019s confession in this case would be inadmissible if the individual requested had fallen into the requisite category, and (b) the detectives were not aware of the aunt\u2019s precise legal status when they chose to press ahead in their interrogation, policy considerations also favor excluding the taped confession. Therefore, I would hold the confession inadmissible.\nA test centering on the circumstances of the aunt as known to the detectives during the interrogation, rather than following a subsequent legal determination, fits in better with the structure and stated objectives of the Juvenile Code. Such a test is more aptly geared to our oft-stated maxim that the burden of proof to show that the juvenile made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights lies with the State. Miller, 344 N.C. at 666, 477 S.E.2d at 920. Taking the majority\u2019s reasoning to its logical conclusion, police could decline a defendant\u2019s request for counsel and still use his subsequent statements as evidence if the requested attorney turned out to have unrelated professional licensing problems such as a shortfall in CLE credits or delinquency in Bar dues. Such a scenario would be self-evidently problematic. Yet I believe it is analytically indistinguishable from the majority\u2019s current holding.\nSince I believe the majority erroneously shifts the pivotal test from the contemporaneous knowledge of the police officers to the subsequently ascertained legal status of the aunt, I cannot agree with the majority\u2019s reasoning as currently stated, and respectfully dissent.\n. The majority\u2019s holding is likely to have wider repercussions because of the large number of North Carolina minors in nontraditional households. See Child Welfare League of Am., North Carolina's Children in 2007, available at http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/statefactsheets/2007/northcarolina.pdf (last visited Aug. 20, 2007) (21.7% of the 10,077 children in North Carolina not in parental custody on 30 September 2004 resided with relatives.)\n. The need for special protection is wellfounded since at least two empirical studies show that \u201cthe vast majority of juveniles are simply incapable of understanding their Miranda rights and the meaning of waiving those rights.\u201d Trey Meyer, Comment, Testing the Validity of Confessions and Waivers of the Self-Incrimination Privilege in the Juvenile Courts, 47 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1035, 1050-51 (1999).", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jonathan R Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant/appellee.", "M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr. for defendant-appellee/appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAAMALL DENARIS OGLESBY\nNo. 683PA05\n(Filed 24 August 2007)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 incriminating statement \u2014 failure to renew objection at trial \u2014 failure to allege plain error \u2014 review under Appellate Rule 2\nAlthough defendant failed to preserve the admissibility of his in-custody incriminating statement for review when he failed to renew his objection at trial following the denial of his pretrial motion in limine and failed to argue plain error because the amendment to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(2) is unconstitutional and Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(1) thus applied, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion under Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to review his contention where the amendment to Rule 103(a)(2) was presumed constitutional at the time of defendant\u2019s trial and defendant may have relied to his detriment on that law.\n2. Confessions and Incriminating Statements\u2014 motion to suppress \u2014 juvenile\u2014guardian\nThe trial court did not err in a first-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, and attempted robbery with a firearm case by denying defendant juvenile\u2019s motion in limine to suppress the statement he made to law enforcement officers on 11 September 2002 under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2101 even though the juvenile had requested to telephone his aunt before making the statement, because: (1) defendant\u2019s aunt was not a guardian for purposes of the relevant statute, and an interpretation of the term \u201cguardian\u201d to encompass anything other than a relationship established by legal process would unjustifiably expand the plain and unambiguous meaning of the word; (2) from the testimony of defendant\u2019s aunt, it is apparent that she never had custody of defendant, that defendant had only stayed with her on occasion but not for any considerable length of time, and that she had never signed any school papers for him; and (3) the only evidence which could possibly support a contrary finding of fact is the aunt\u2019s testimony that she was a mother figure to defendant, which did not amount to the legal authority inherent in a guardian or custodial relationship.\n3. Sentencing\u2014 Blakely error \u2014 harmless error review\nThe Court of Appeals\u2019 finding of Blakely error in aggravated sentences imposed for armed robberies, which it treated as structural error, is vacated and the cases are remanded to the Court of Appeals for harmless error review pursuant to State v. Blackwell, 361 N.C. 41 (2006).\nJustice Timmons-Goodson dissenting.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 174 N.C. App. 658, 622 S.E.2d 152 (2005), finding no error in part in judgments entered 28 May 2004 by Judge Catherine C. Eagles in Superior Court, Forsyth County, but remanding for resentencing on two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon and to arrest judgment either on defendant\u2019s conviction for first-degree kidnapping or his conviction for attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. Heard in the Supreme Court 7 May 2007.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Jonathan R Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant/appellee.\nM. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr. for defendant-appellee/appellant." }, "file_name": "0550-01", "first_page_order": 608, "last_page_order": 617 }