Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/212-s-2d-92-619291987
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:22:33+00:00

Document:
Party Name: STATE of North Carolina v. Frank PRUITT, II.
[286 N.C. 446] Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by Asst. Attys. Gen. William W. Melvin and William B. Ray, Raleigh, for the State.
Donald W. Grimes, Fayetteville, for defendant.
v. Dillard, 285 N.C. 72, 203 S.E.2d 6. This assignment of error is overruled on authority of these cases.
'. . . Goodman told me the house was engulfed in flames and there might be people there. Chief Goodman said a subject who gave him some information was near a trailer and I went to the location and talked with him. I approached the man who was the defendant to get some information from him because I was actually the only deputy at the scene at that time.
I was concerned about the lives of the subjects still in the house. I recall asking him regarding any people being in the burning house.
Q. What, if anything, did not defendant say in response to your questions?
[286 N.C. 448] We recognize that procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination are necessary whenever law enforcement officers question a person who has been 'taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his (liberty) in any significant way.' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. When custodial interrogation begins is a question which has generated much judicial discussion. See Annotation, 31 A.L.R.3rd 565.
Accord: State v. Sykes, 285 N.C. 202, 203 S.E.2d 849; State v. Gladden, 279 N.C. 566, 184 S.E.2d 249; State v. Shedd, 274 N.C. 95, 161 S.E.2d 477; State v. Hayes, 273 N.C. 712, 161 S.E.2d 185.
in a general on-the-scene investigation which was obviously directed to whether there were persons in the burning dwelling. There was nothing to suggest an in-custody interrogation or that the investigation had been focused upon defendant as the perpetrator of a crime.
Further, Chief Goodman had already testified without objection to substantially the same facts. It is well established that when evidence is admitted over objection and the same evidence has theretofore or thereafter been admitted without objection, the benefit of the objection is lost. State v. Jarrette, Supra; State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839; 1 D. Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 30 (Brandis Rev.).
[286 N.C. 449] We find no merit in this assignment of error.
Defendant next contends that the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress the oral and written confessions allegedly made by defendant.
I, Frank Pruitt, II, am 21 years old. My date of birth is 28 Dec 51. I live at 5105 Patton St, Lot 103, Fayetteville, N.C.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 30