Opinion ID: 1407728
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Due Deference to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact

Text: As the majority notes, the trial court's relevant findings of fact in its order denying defendant's motion to suppress were limited to the following statement: [Defendant] remained stopped [at the green light] for some 30 seconds without any reasonable appearance of explanation for doing so, and the officer observed that the victim [sic] was impeding traffic, if nothing else. [2] It is well established that the appellate courts of this State are bound by a trial court's findings of fact on appeal if supported by competent evidence, and our determination is limited to whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law. State v. Cheek, 351 N.C. 48, 63, 520 S.E.2d 545, 554 (1999) (citing Watkins, 337 N.C. at 438, 446 S.E.2d at 68), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1245, 120 S.Ct. 2694, 147 L.Ed.2d 965 (2000). Appellate courts are simply not in a position to make findings of fact on the basis of a cold reading of the transcript and trial record. To the extent the majority reaches beyond the trial court's findings of fact and relies substantially upon the testimony of Officer Maltby to buttress the trial court's conclusion of law, this action constitutes a usurpation of the trial court's preeminence as finder of fact and is contrary to this Court's settled precedent set forth in Cheek. [3] This overreach is especially troublesome considering that the testimony quoted in the majority opinion was provided by Officer Maltby in response to a leading question from the prosecutor. In fact, the only unprompted reasoning given by Officer Maltby for stopping defendant's vehicle was that defendant was impeding flow of traffic, which Officer Maltby mistakenly believed to be a traffic violation, and that defendant's thirty second delay would typically mean that the Defendant was paying particular attention to the rear view mirror and noticing me and not the actual traffic light, which is an innocent explanation for the officer's observations. [4]