Opinion ID: 1381545
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: claim of inadequate findings by trial court

Text: Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to make adequate findings as to whether defendant requested counsel during the time of his interrogation. He argues that there is some conflict in the testimony presented at the suppression hearing which was not addressed or resolved by the trial court's order. Defendant relies on the decision of this Court in State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E.2d 492 (1968) and State v. Waddell, 34 N.C.App. 188, 237 S.E.2d 558 (1977). Defendant's reliance on these decisions is also misplaced. In both those cases, the evidence was sharply conflicting as to whether the defendant had requested an attorney prior to the time of making his confession. And in both cases, the trial court made no mention of counsel whatsoever in its findings of fact. Such omission was sufficient to remand each case for a new trial. Here, however, the trial court did mention a request for counsel. While its order does not expressly find that defendant did not request counsel during the time of his interrogation, the court clearly found, in several instances, that defendant waived his right to counsel. Indeed, under our decisions in State v. Siler, 292 N.C. 543, 549-50, 234 S.E.2d 733, 737 (1977) and State v. Biggs, 289 N.C. 522, 531, 223 S.E.2d 371, 377 (1976), the essential finding at voir dire is not that defendant did not request counsel but that defendant waived counsel. Here that essential finding was made. We do not believe that Fox, supra, or Waddell, supra, require the use of any particular phrasing to express the trial court's clear and unmistakable finding that defendant did not request counsel but in fact waived it. This assignment of error is therefore overruled.