State v. Archible

5 Citing cases

  1. Whitfield v. State

    287 Md. 124 (Md. 1980)   Cited 49 times
    Holding that the subjective intent of police officer is irrelevant to the Miranda custody determination

    However, prior to addressing this issue, we need to consider the State's contention that Miranda is inapplicable to emergencies such as existed at the time of the questioning in the Baltimore City jail, for if this is so, then it will be unnecessary for us to delineate the type of interrogation that then occurred. Relying on dicta in Hunt v. State, 2 Md. App. 443, 447, 234 A.2d 785, 787-88 (1967), as well as a handful of decisions from other jurisdictions, People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 423 P.2d 800, 56 Cal.Rptr. 648 (1967); State v. Archible, 25 N.C. App. 95, 212 S.E.2d 44 (1975); State v. Abbott, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142 (1968); State v. Persinger, 72 Wn.2d 561, 433 P.2d 867 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 864 (1968); State v. LaRue, 19 Wn. App. 841, 578 P.2d 66 (1978), the Court of Special Appeals, in upholding the trial court's ruling, determined that compliance with Miranda by prison authorities is excused by the emergency erupting from the "unusual explosive circumstances" of a gun in the possession of an inmate. Whitfield v. State, supra, 42 Md. App. at 126-28, 400 A.2d at 783-85.

  2. Whittle v. State

    518 So. 2d 793 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)   Cited 45 times
    In Whittle v. State, 518 So.2d 793, 796 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987), the appellant alleged that his statement was involuntary because he had been drinking heavily on the day of the offense and had taken "a number of nerve pills or sleeping pills after the incident and did not remember giving any statements after his arrest...."

    Sheriff Whittle did not interrupt, by question or comment, the defendant's initial narrative of the events resulting in the victim's death, but he did question the defendant at the conclusion of his incriminating story. Although the questions related to rather insignificant details and appeared to be "for the purpose of clarifying certain points made by the defendant," see State v. Archible, 25 N.C. App. 95, 212 S.E.2d 44, 46 (1975), we recognize that because the questions were "reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response," Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. at 301-02, 100 S.Ct. at 1689-90, they constituted interrogation. We find, nevertheless, that because the defendant had already completely incriminated himself by the time he had finished his volunteered and uninterrupted narrative, that any error of admitting defendant's answers to Sheriff Whittle's follow-up questions was harmless.

  3. State v. Holsclaw

    42 N.C. App. 696 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding no error where trial judge discussed proximate cause in relation to the case, then instructed the jury that voluntary manslaughter was an unlawful killing without malice and later referenced proximate cause as an issue

    The question was proper under the circumstances. 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, appeal dismissed, 285 N.C. 763, 209 S.E.2d 287 (1974). The rifle, in plain view, was observed by an officer lawfully present following a general investigatory question. It was properly admitted.

  4. Whitfield v. State

    42 Md. App. 107 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979)   Cited 11 times
    In Whitfield, an inmate who had attempted escape gave police a Miranda-violative statement implicating himself and a guard who had provided inmates with a gun.

    Hunt v. State, supra, upon which the State relies, is the sole Maryland case to ever address the issue, although a number of other jurisdictions have had the occasion to speak on the subject. People v. Sanchez, 65 Cal.2d 814, 423 P.2d 800 (1967) (statements admissible due to apprehension of safety for prison by guard); State v. Archible, 25 N.C. App. 95, 212 S.E.2d 44 (1975) (interrogation of prison guard held non-custodial); State v. Abbott, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142 (1968) (interrogation immediately after stabbing to find owner of knife); State v. Persinger, 72 Wn.2d 561, 433 P.2d 867 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 864 (1968) (statement taken during course of escape); State v. LaRue, 19 Wn. App. 841, 578 P.2d 66 (1978) (on-the-scene investigation for weapon). We agree with the State that the above-cited cases more aptly apply to the circumstances surrounding the incriminating statements made by Whitfield, than do those which journey to an opposite end.

  5. State v. Gardner

    221 S.E.2d 741 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    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.