154 N.C. App. 500 - State v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`the standard of review in evaluating a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is that the trial court's findings of fact `are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.''”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 N.C. App. 133 - State v. Fisher · 219 N.C. App. 50 - State v. Hemphill

2. “a reasonable person [in the defendant's] circumstances would believe that he was under arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 253 N.C. App. 525 - State v. Burris · 248 N.C. App. 388 - State v. Barnes

3. “The Miranda Court defined “custodial interrogation” as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 . “[T]he appropriate inquiry in determining whether a defendant is in ‘custody’ for purposes of Miranda is, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether there was a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’ ” Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 339, 543 S.E.2d at 828 (citations omitted). The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that “the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Id. at 341, 543 S.E.2d at 829 (quoting Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 323 , 114 S.Ct. 1526 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994)). “A policeman’s unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question of whether a suspect was ‘in custody’ at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Buchanan, 353 N.C. at 341-42, 543 S.E.2d at 829 (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 N.C. App. 50 - State v. Hemphill