[Download] "North Carolina v. Johnston" by Court of Appeals of New York " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: North Carolina v. Johnston
- Author : Court of Appeals of New York
- Release Date : January 02, 1994
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 55 KB
Description
In order to determine "whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers requests or otherwise terminate the encounter." Florida v. Bostick, U.S. , 115 L. Ed. 2d 389, 401-02 (1991). See State v. Poindexter, 104 N.C. App. 260, 265, 409 S.E.2d 614, 616 (1991), disc. review denied, 330 N.C. 616, 412 S.E.2d 93 (1992). The scope of appellate review of a ruling upon a motion to suppress is "strictly limited to determining whether the trial Judges underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the Judges ultimate Conclusions of law." State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982)(citations omitted). An appellate court accords great deference to the trial courts ruling on a motion to suppress because the trial court is entrusted with the duty to hear testimony (thereby observing the demeanor of the witnesses) and to weigh and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. Id.; State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 36, 41, 178 S.E.2d 597, 601, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 934, 29 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1971). We note that the record on appeal contains no findings of fact or Conclusions of law by the trial court regarding the denial of defendants motion to suppress. We further note that nothing in the record indicates that defendant objected at trial to the trial courts failure to make findings or Conclusions and that defendant has not assigned error to the absence of such findings or Conclusions. No material conflict in the evidence exists here. "Where there is no material conflict in the evidence, findings and Conclusions are not necessary even though the better practice is to find facts." State v. Edwards and State v. Jones, 85 N.C. App. 145, 148, 354 S.E.2d 344, 347, disc. review denied, 320 N.C. 172, 358 S.E.2d 58 (1987)(citation omitted).