Title: State v. McCrary

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 413A14  
Filed 18 December 2015 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
v. 
RONALD MICHAEL McCRARY 
 
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 
the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 764 S.E.2d 477 (2014), affirming in part and  
remanding in part for additional findings of fact an order denying motions to suppress 
and to dismiss entered on 18 March 2013, which resulted in judgments entered on 21 
March 2013, all by Judge W. Osmond Smith in Superior Court, Chatham County.  On 
10 June 2015, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari 
and the State’s petition for discretionary review.  Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 
November 2015. 
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney 
General, for the State-appellant/appellee. 
John L. Wait for defendant-appellant/appellee. 
 
PER CURIAM. 
  
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 
STATE V. MCCRARY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
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.   
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 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.  
 
STATE V. MCCRARY 
 
Opinion of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED; PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF 
CERTIORARI 
AND 
FOR 
DISCRETIONARY 
REVIEW 
IMPROVIDENTLY 
ALLOWED.