Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

368 N.C. 571

State v. McCrary

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 18, 2015

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 2015-12-18

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2019

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[A]ll of these questions are squarely within the authority of the trial court to make the factual findings as to these issues and to make the appropriate legal conclusions upon those facts. It is the trial court that is entrusted with the duty to hear testimony, weigh and resolve any conflicts in the evidence, find the facts, and, then based upon those findings, render a legal decision, in the first instance, as to whether or not a constitutional violation of some kind has occurred. .... Defendant is correct that the trial court did not make any specific findings addressing the availability of a magistrate at the time of the incident and the probable delay in seeking a warrant, although Deputy Fyle did testify about this matter, but it seems ... that the trial court considered the time factor in mentioning [that Deputy Fyle had a reasonable belief that there was an exigency based upon the] "additional time and uncertainties in how much additional time would be needed to obtain a search warrant." Without findings of fact on these details, however, we cannot properly review this conclusion. We must therefore remand this matter to the trial court for additional findings of fact as to the availability of a magistrate and the "additional time and uncertainties" in obtaining a warrant, as well as the "other attendant circumstances" that may support the conclusion of law that exigent circumstances existed.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 264 N.C. App. 467 - State v. Gamez

“[W]e remand to the Court of Appeals with instructions to that court to vacate the portion of the trial court's ... order denying defendant's motion to suppress [the warrantless blood test] and further remand to the trial court for (1) additional findings and conclusions-and, if necessary-a new hearing on whether the totality of the events underlying defendant's motion to suppress gave rise to exigent circumstances, and (2) thereafter to reconsider, if necessary, the judgments ... entered[.]”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 264 N.C. App. 467 - State v. Gamez

Relies on 133 S. Ct. 1552 - Missouri v. McNeely

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2015-12-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This case comes before this Court from the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s 18 March 2013 order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, but remanded the case “to the trial court to make additional findings of fact addressing the availability of a magistrate and the additional time and uncertainties in obtaining a warrant, as well as the other attendant circumstances that bear upon the conclusion of law that exigent circumstances existed that justified the warrantless blood draw. State v. McCrary, _ N.C. App. _, _, 764 S.E.2d 477, 483 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In considering this case, the trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. McNeely, _ U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). Moreover, in remanding to the trial court for further findings of fact, the Court of Appeals did not vacate or reverse the trial court’s previous order.

¶2 We affirm the Court of Appeals majority opinion to the extent it affirms the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. In addition, we remand to the Court of Appeals with instructions to that court to vacate the portion of the trial court’s 18 March 2013 order denying *572 defendant’s motion to suppress and further remand to the trial court for (1) additional findings and conclusions — and, if necessary — a new hearing on whether the totality of the events underlying defendant’s motion to suppress gave rise to exigent circumstances, and (2) thereafter to reconsider, if necessary, the judgments and commitments entered by the trial court on 21 March 2013. Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the State’s petition for discretionary review were improvidently allowed.

¶3 AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED; PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

/368/nc/571 · .json · Public domain